' Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22-5-2006 respondent No,2 has been served through citation in the Press i,e, the Daily Nawa-i-Waqt', Lahore. The said citation, has been duly published.
Despite repeated calls no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No,2 who is hereby proceeded ex parte.
2. This . Appeal is directed against the order dated 13-10-2003, whereby the plaint filed by the appellant before the Banking Court was returned for lack of jurisdiction. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief and permanent injunction against the respondents alleging therein that the appellant had purchased shares in question through respondent No,2 and he held the said shares on behalf of the appellant. It was contended that 6000 of such shares were given by respondent No,2 to the respondent No,1 bank as security in respect of finance facility advanced to him without knowledge or permission of the present appellant. In the above context it is prayed that the decree for declaration be passed that the shares lying with the respondent No,1 bank are free from all encumbrances and liable to be returned to the appellant. The respondents Nos.1 and 3 entered appearance and filed their applications for leave to defend the suit, inter alia, taking the plea that the Banking Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter as the appellant was not a customer. The Banking Court vide the impugned order directed the return of plaint for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents Nos.1 and 3 have been heard and the record perused.
4. The suit can only be filed before the Banking Court by a customer or a financial institution. It is obviously not the case of the appellant that he is a financial institution. The customer has been defined in section 2(c) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 as follows;-- "2. (a) ...................
(b) ..................
(c). "Customer" means a person to whom finance has been extended by a financial institution and includes a person on whose behalf a guarantee or letter of credit has been issued by a financial institution as well as a surety or an indemnifier."
5. A perusal of the plaint reveals that it is not the case of the appellant that any finance was extended by the respondent No,1 financial institution to him nor was any guarantee or letter of credit issued by the said respondent No,1 financial institution on his behalf. It is also not the case of the appellant that he is a surety or indemnifier of any finance extended by the said respondent No,
1. In fact the case of the appellant is that no finance was ever extended to the appellant nor did he stand as a surety or indemnifier for any such finance. Consequently the contents of the plaint itself make it clear and obvious that not only the appellant is not a customer but in fact it is the case of the appellant that he is not a customer. In the above circumstances the appellant could not file a suit before the Banking Court. Hence, the plaint filed by him has been rightly returned for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 contends that the Civil Courts are vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and if any such suit is filed by the appellant, no objection as to jurisdiction will be taken by the respondent No,1. In this view of the matter no exception can be taken to the impugned order which is in accordance with law. Consequently this appeal being without any merit is dismissed.