1. ' The above appeal has been filed by the appellant-Bank against the order dated 12-5-2004 whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court while granting unconditional leave to defend Suit No,B-90 of 2001, filed by the respondent-Company against the appellant-Bank for accounts, injunction, declaration and damages, framed five issues. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the pliant in the above suit was not accompanied by a separate statement of account as required by section 9(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinances"), the learned Single Judge ought to have rejected the plaint, as on 8-5-2002 a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the respondents above suit was framed in the suit. Mr. Syed Mamnoon Hassan, the learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset objected to the maintainability of the above appeal. He submitted that in terms of section 22(1) of the Ordinance, an appeal can only be filed against a judgment, decree, sentence or a final order, passed by a Banking Court and not against an interim order. He has further referred to subsection (6) of the aforesaid section which puts a clear bar against filing an appeal, review or revision against an order accepting or rejecting an application to leave to defend. Or any interlocutory order of the Banking Court, which does not dispose of the entire case before the Banking Court, with the exception of orders passed under subsection (11), section 15 and subsection
(7) of section 19 of the Ordinance. The learned counsel submits that it is now well-settled that a Single Judge of this Court while hearing the cases under "The Ordinance", acts as a Banking Court and as such the present appeal, assailing the order of a Single Judge, passed in the banking jurisdiction, is not amenable to appeal as the impugned order is not a final order but merely an interlocutory order. He submitted that through the said order the learned Single Judge has merely granted to the appellant leave to appear and defend the suit and has framed five issues for final adjudication of the suit, amongst which issues the very first issue is regarding the maintainability of the suit.
2. ' We have gone through the impugned order arid have found that the learned Single Judge in the said order has merely expressed his prima facie and tentative view, that even a statement of account contained in the body of the plaint in a banking suit meets the requirement of section 9(2) of the Ordinance as the purpose of the said provision would be substantially served where the plaintiff, with sufficient details gives such break-up in the body of the plaint, and has not only kept the question of maintainability of the suit alive by framing an issue concerning the maintainability of the suit but had also allowed the appellant-Bank to file an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Raising all the legal objections as may be available to them. We have been informed by the learned counsel that the appellant-Bank has in fact filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Containing legal objections and the same, after hearing, has been reserved for order. We have also noted that although no separate statement of account was filed along with the plaint however, the respondents along with their replication to the appellant's application under section 10 of "The Ordinance" has filed statements of accounts regarding the relevant transaction/accounts. The appellant has however, raised no objection regarding such accounts nor have they even alleged that such statement is incomplete or insufficient for the purpose of the respondents suit. In any event since through the impugned order the learned Single Judge has granted unconditional leave to the appellant to appear and defend the respondent's suit and such leave has been granted mainly in view of their objections regarding non-filing of separate statement of account along with the plaint, and the question of maintainability of the respondents suit has been kept alive through the impugned order by framing a specific issue regarding the maintainability of the suit, and by allowing the appellant to file an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., order on which application has been reserved after hearing the parties, the impugned order cannot be said to be a final order and in view of the provisions of section 22 of the Ordinance which places a clear bar on filing of an appeal against an interlocutory order which does not dispose of the entire case before the Banking Court. The above appeal is not maintainable. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine along with the pending application.