1. KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.-- By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Petitioner prayed to declare that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah in Civil Suit No. 135/1991 is illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
2. Brief facts for the purpose of deciding the petition are that respondent No. 2, a proprietorship concern firm was maintaining an account with the petitioner-Bank on 20.2.1990 applied for the financial facilities in the shape of Running finance facilities amounting to Rs. 50,000/-, which facility was granted by the petitioner-Bank and was secured by the hypothecation of stock of mostly foam and recogzine and an insurance was arranged from M/s. Union Insurance Company. On 6A 1990 due to fire in the shop of respondent No. 2, the stock of about Rs. 1,90,550/- was destroyed. The respondent No. 2 filed suit bearing Suit No. 135/1991 for recovery of the compensation/damages, and declaration against the petitioner-Bank in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah, that the petitioner Bank is liable to pay compensation and the petitioner be directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- equivalent to insurance value of the policy obtained by the petitioner-Bank.
3. The petitioner-Bank filed written statement, denied the claim of respondent No. 2 and questioned the jurisdiction of Court on the ground that the dispute pertains to Insurance Tribunal and Court has no jurisdiction. After framing the issues including the issue that whether the Court has no jurisdiction, evidence were recorded, and the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit against the petitioner on 5th September, 1997 in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner questioned the said order through this petition filed on 16.1.2001.
4. Heard Mr. Rizwan .Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ghulam Shabhir Memon, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
5. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the judgment and decreed passed by the Senior Civil Judge in the matter is without jurisdiction as in the matter pertaining finance and or loan only Banking Court has exclusive jurisdiction and the decree passed by the Civil Court is without lawful authority. in support of his contention learned Advocate argued that the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 enacted on 2.2.1997, whereas the suit was decreed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah on 2.9.1997 and in terms of Section 7(6), the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances. Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of his contention relied upon the case of Jehan Khan v. Province of Sindh and others (PLD 2003 Kar. 691), where this Court has held that void order is nullity in the eye of law and does hot confer any right on the parties, and parties adversely affected by the void order should take resort to proper proceedings for getting the same set aside in accordance with the provisions of law as and when it comes to the knowledge of the affected party". Mst. Badshah Begum and others v. The Additional Commissioner (R). Lahore. Division and others (2003 SCM R 629), Messrs Grain Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. And 10 others v. Agricultural Development Bank (1993 SCM R 1996).
6. On the other band, Mr. Ghulam Shabhir Memon, learned Advocate for respondent No. 2, argued that under the Banking Companies Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 only banking companies on file suit before Banking Tribunal and customer has to file suit before Civil Court and at the time when suit was filed" only Civil Court had jurisdiction to, deal with the cases filed by the customer. Learned Advocate further argued that against judgment of Civil Court, petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No 412 of 2000, which was dismissed on 9.12.2000 and instead of filing the revision against the said order, the appellant has filed this petition, which is not maintainable.
7. We have, taken into consideration respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. From perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner-Bank has granted financial facilities in the shape of running finance facilities to respondent No. 2, which was availed by him. The respondent No. 2, as a security for the finance availed by him hypothecated stocks lying in his shop. The petitioner in the memo: of petition stated that the hypothecated stocks were insured from Union Insurance Company covering risks and fires RSD. From perusal of the plaint of suit filed by the respondent it appears that respondent confined his claim only to the extent of loss suffered by him due to failure of the petitioner to get hypothecated stocks insured covering risk of fire and has not called in question whether he is liable to pay 164 C.L. - Pakistan Company & Tax Law Reports finance availed by him or not. Even in the relief the respondent has not claimed adjustment of such losses against the amount if any outstanding to him. The entire claim of the respondent in the suit pertains only to loss suffered by the respondent due to fire resulting that the stock lying in his shop, were destroyed, which petitioner was required to insure with risk of fire. We would not like to discuss, whether there was any breach on the part of the petitioner in getting the stocks insured without insurance cover of fire or not because the same has not been argued before us. The only question argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Court passed decree has no jurisdiction.
8. Before proceedings further we would like to discuss first the case-law relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. In the case M/s. Grain Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. And 10 others (supra), suit was filed by the customer/borrower for rendition of account and injunction, the Court dealt with the question about the jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 and it was held that the suit for recovery of loans pending in the Civil Court should be transferred-to the Special Court constituted under the Ordinance, 1979 by the Civil Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, in the case of Mst. Badshah Begum and others (supra), Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "if any authority has no jurisdiction in the matter under the law, the jurisdiction could not be conferred on the said Authority by an order of the Court".
9. There is no cavil to the proposition laid down by the Court in the above-referred matter, in the suit filed by a banking company against the borrower or customer for recovery of loans or finances, or filed by a customer against a banking company claiming any adjustment set of or setting up another counter claim through an independent suit or in a suit filed by the Bank or suit for rendition of accounts arising out of the . Loan or finance or suit for specific performance seeking enforcement of a contract to pay or repay any loan or finance or performed any obligation arising out of such contract or-suit for declaration as to legality, validity or otherwise any document, which create loan or finance or suit for cancellation of instrument through any liability to pay or repay ,loan or finance may arises or suit for damages arising out of the breach of agreement executed in respect of loan or finance between the bank on one hand and borrower on the other hand, Banking Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter.
10. The suit filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner-Bank, he had not claimed any relief against the petitioner-Bank for rendition of account or adjustment. The respondent No. 2 suit was based upon the failure of the petitioner to provide fire insurance cover under the insurance policy Tor which he had charged premium from the respondent and judgment and decree cannot be held as without jurisdiction.
11. Even otherwise petition also suffered from laches. The suit against the petitioner was decreed on 5.9.1997, whereas petition has been filed on 16.1.2001, after more than 3 years from date of the passing of the judgment and decree on merits. The petitioner has also not come with clean hand and he concealed this fact that the impugned decree has been questioned by filing appeal, which fact was brought to our notice during the course of the arguments by the respondent.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.