MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 26-1-1994 the respondent No.1 filed a suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs.3,63,26,400 in a Banking Tribunal-I, Faisalabad. Notices were issued in the manner prescribed. Appellants Nos.3, 4, 5 and 9 filed reply to show-cause notices. On 16-5-1994 the remaining appellants were proceeded against ex parte. The respondent No.1 filed the reply to the show-cause notice and the case was being adjourned for arguments. On 8-9-1994 an application was filed on behalf of appellants Nos.3, 4, 5 and 9 praying that preliminary issues be framed. The case was adjourned for framing of said issues to 29-9-1994. On this date, the reader recorded that the Presiding Officer has been transferred and the case was adjourned to 6-10-1994. On this date, only the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 appeared. It was observed that none has turned up for the appellants. The reply to the show-cause notice is rejected and the suit was decreed as prayed for. On 23-4-1994 an application was filed by the LRs of appellant No.9 for setting aside the said ex parte decree. The application was resisted. Vide order dated 10-7-1996 the Chairman, Banking Tribunal-I, Faisalabad, set aside the ex parte decree dated 6-10-1994 subject to payment of Rs.5,000 as costs. The file was put up before the Chairman on 10-7-1996 when he recorded that he has set aside the decree and the suit file has been requisitioned. He directed for filing of amended plaint. The amended plaint was filed on 3-9-1996. The reply to the show-cause notice was filed by the said LRs on 9-9-1996. On 13-10-1996 appellants Nos.6, 7 and 8 were proceeded against ex parte. Vide judgment dated 5-11-1996 the Chairman, Banking Tribunal-I, Faisalabad, decreed the suit as prayed for.
2. This RFA came up before this Court on 4-6-1997 when after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, it was deemed necessary to hear the respondents at limine stage. On 24-9-1997 the case was taken up in the presence of counsel for the parties. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that they are willing that the mortgage property be sold and from the proceeds thereof the decretal amount be adjusted. Some objections to the statement of account were also stated. A direction was issued for production of statement of account on 2-10-1997. On this date, the learned counsel, for the appellants was called upon to produce a buyer on 20-10-1997. On this date, it was stated on behalf of the appellants that a purchaser with positive response is not available and further no objection was expressed if the respondents sell the property themselves or took it over.
The learned counsel for the respondents suggested that the sale be conducted by the Court. An order was passed appointing Court Auctioneer with instructions to conduct the sale. Thereafter, the matter was being adjourned from time to time as to the mode of the sale. Thereafter, learned counsel for both the parties stood elevated to this. Court and notices were issued to the parties.
Their learned Advocates put in appearance but the case was being adjourned on request of one or the other party. On 24-5-2004 the RFA was dismissed for non-prosecution. It was restored vide order dated 21-10-2004 in C.M. No.537-C of 2004. Thereafter, again, the case was being adjourned from time to time. It was on 4-10-2005 that the file was examined in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and it was noted that the appellants had expressed agreement to the sale of the property and a query was raised as to what became of the sale. Ultimately, the hearing commenced in this appeal on 29-11-2006 and has been concluded today.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Chairman, Banking Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction. According to him, the judgment of a learned Full Bench of this Court in the case of Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. And others v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others PLD 1996 Lahore 672 was passed on 21-7-1996, and the notifications appointing the Chairmen of the Banking Tribunals were declared to be void along with some other provisions of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. The said judgment was suspended by the Honourable Supreme Court (in Chamber) on 24-7-1996. The said interim order was modified on 14-10-1996 and the Chairman, Banking Tribunals were restrained from passing final orders. The precise contention of the learned counsel is that the decree passed on 5-11-1996 by the Banking Tribunal-I, Faisalabad, is wholly without jurisdiction. When confronted with the contents of the orders dated 24-9-1997 and 20-10-1997 of this Court, learned counsel states at the bar that he has instructions to state that his clients will not be questioning the sales of the mortgage properties effected during the pendency of this RFA and the adjustment of the proceeds by the respondents against their respective dues.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contend that, in fact, a decree was passed earlier in time against all the defendants and that it was set aside only to the extent of LRs of appellant No.9 and as such the said decree will remain in tact being a past and closed transaction.
They, of course, concede that the impugned decree dated 5-11-1996 does suffer from lack of jurisdiction.
4. We have gone through the trial Court records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The detail of the proceedings that took place before the Chairman, Banking Tribunal, have already been stated above in detail. It is true that the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 6-10-1994 was filed only by the LRs of appellant No.9. We have examined the order dated 10- 7-1996 of the Chairman, Banking Tribunal and we have no manner of doubt in our minds that the entire decree dated 6-10-1994 was set aside. This is also evident from the subsequent proceedings that took place before the learned Tribunal which have already been referred to above. We, therefore, do find that the Chairman, Banking Tribunal-I, Faisalabad, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgment and decree dated 5-11-1996. The RFA is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 5-11-1996 passed by Banking Tribunal-I, Faisalabad, is set aside. The result would be that the suit filed by respondent No.1 against the appellants shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Judge, Banking Court-I, Faisalabad. The records shall be immediately remitted to the said learned Court before whom the parties shall appear on 17-1-2007. This judgment has been announced in presence of learned counsel for the appellants in the open Court and it has been duly notified that his clients will be filing an application for leave to defend in terms of section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, within 10 days from today in the said Court. No orders as. To costs,