' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Appellant/plaintiff, through the present appeal, has called in question order dated 6-7-2001, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court returned the plaint in appellant's suit.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs,50,00,000 against the respondents, before the Banking Court constituted under the Provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances Credits and Finances Act, 1997. Respondent's application for leave to defend the suit was allowed, they filed the written statement and the learned Banking Court framed as many as eleven (11) issues. The learned Banking Court treated Issues Nos.1, 2, 5 and 8 as legal issues and after hearing the parties returned the plaint, under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C., for presentation before the appropriate forum, vide impugned order dated 6-7- 2001, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, while relying upon Nasimuddin Siddiqui and another v. United Bank Limited and others 1998 CLC 1718, states that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the suit was competent before the Banking Court. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents, while relying upon the same judgment, submits that since the suit was for recovery of damages for torts, therefore, the impugned order is legal and valid.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the summoned record. The case of the appellant, as made out in the plaint, is that although he had credit balance of Rs,393,215.55 in his account maintained with the respondent-Bank, yet his cheque dated 5-6-1998 for Rs,3,00,000 was not encashed and resultantly he suffered losses, as his earnest money of Rs,15,00,000 was confiscated. Details of the recovery suit, as given in the plaint, are as under:-- ' Forfeiture of the amount of earnest money Rs,15,00,000 ' Mental Torture Rs, 15,00,000 ' Loss in business Rs,20,00,000
5. In view of the stance of the appellant, he neither falls within the definitions of "borrower" and "customer" nor he obtained any "finance" or "loan", as defined under Act XV of 1997. The suit filed by the appellant was simple suit for recovery of damages on the basis of torts. It is evident from the portion of judgment in the case of Nasimuddin Siddiqui and another (supra), reproduced by the learned Banking Court, that suit for damages in tort cases has specifically been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Banking Court. The learned Banking Court rightly relied upon the judgment, relied upon by both the learned counsel, and passed the impugned order, which is not open to exception.
6. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits, hence dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.