NASIM SIKANDAR, J.-This regular first appeal seeks to ' challenge an order recorded by the Banking Tribunal, he set aside the judgment and decree earlier passed by the Tribunal on 14-2-1996 in re: Messrs Saudi- Pak Industrial and Agricultural Company (Pvt.) Limited v. Saudi-Pak Kala Bagh Live Stock Company Limited, Islamabad, .Etc. The operative part of the order reads as under- "Whereas now it is established that plaintiff SAPICO was himself sponsor of the petitioner/defendant- company and they have nominated two above mentioned directors along with A.D.B.P, while decreeing a suit against a company all the Directors of the Board of Directors are jointly and severally responsible of the liabilities against the company, whereas out the Board of Directors only two Directors i. e. Petitioner/defendants Nos. 2-3 cannot be held jointly and severally responsible, therefore in such circumstances any such suit is not maintainable nor is competent.
This is the well-established principle of law that every Court and Tribunal has got inherent powers to review and also to correct the errors at any time whenever any such true facts comes to its knowledge to justify such a review. Therefore, I am fully convinced that as no such any suit by the respondent/plaintiff against its own sponsor company was competent nor maintainable as well as the only two directors were also jointly and severally not held to be responsible for the liabilities of a company. Therefore in such a suit the passing of the decree, dated 14-2-1996 was illegal and against the ends of justice. Hence the order, dated 14-2-1996, by which a decree has been passed against petitioners/defendants is hereby set aside."
2. No one for the respondents which were earlier represented by Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, Advocate has turned up.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the ratio settled in re: Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 1981 SC 94, Re: Messrs Baghpotee Services (Private) Ltd. And others v. Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. 2001, CLC 1363, Re: Messrs Shah Jewana Textile Mills Ltd, Lahore v. United Bank Ltd. PLD 2000 Lah. 162 and re: Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited v. Digital Radio Paging (Pvt.) Ltd. And 4 others 2000 CLC 1153 to contend that the Banking Tribunal was not possessed with a specific power to review its orders and, therefore, the impugned order is totally illegal.
4. We are informed that in an identical matter R.F.A. 19 of 1997, decided on 20-12-2004 re: Saudi Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company (Pvt.) Limited v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited and Saudi Pak Kalabagh Livestock Company Limited a Division Bench of this Court struck down a similar order passed in review by the Banking Tribunal, lt was a decree passed by it earlier on 19-6-1996 which was recalled and set aside in the process the Hon'ble Division Bench after holding that power of review was not available to the Banking Tribunal under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 further observed that even if the Banking Tribunal was of the view that the judgment-and decree sought to be reviewed suffered from any mistake apparent on the facer of the record they should have tried the suit on merits instead of dismissing the same after recalling of the decree.
5. For the various reasons stated in the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court in the identical mater and on the ratio settled in the judgments relied upon at the bar by the appellant we will allow this appeal by holding that in absence of a specific power available to the Banking Tribunal under the aforesaid Ordinance, 1984 the impugned order passed in review application is not sustainable at law lt shall accordingly be set aside
6. Appeal accepted.