1. ' MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.--- Through this revision order of the learned Vth Additional District Judge has been challenged. The contention between the parties is that the applicant filed a suit for recovery of damages of Rs,5 million on account of defamation under Defamation Ordinance, 2002, but the plaint has been returned by the learned Vth Additional District Judge by its order dated 7-1- 2006 on the ground that since the issue pertains to the jurisdiction of Banking Court, therefore, that Court has no jurisdiction.
2. ' Mr. Arshad Jamal Siddique learned counsel for the applicant submits that the District Judge has exclusive jurisdiction under section 13 of the Defamation Ordinance and that the plaint has wrongly been returned, the learned Court would have decided the suit on merits.
3. ' On the other hand Mr. Amir Mansoor Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent No,1 submits that the plaint has rightly been returned as the issue actually pertains to the Banking Court as the applicant was a guarantor in a finance granted to a borrower i,e, respondent No,2 and a suit in this respect bearing No,24 of 2005 was filed in the Banking Court against applicant and respondent No,2, which suit has been decreed and execution is in process. The applicant instead of contesting the banking suit has filed this case to detour the situation. He submit that the Banking Court has already held that the applicant is a guarantor and was liable along with the respondent No,2, therefore, the finding of a competent Court can only be challenged before Appellate Court and no other forum can be used as there will be multiplicity of the proceedings and two different Courts cannot be permitted to take up similar issue for decision. The contentions raised by Mr. Amir Mansoor Qureshi seems to be correct as the fate of the applicant as to whether he is guarantor or not has already been decided by the Banking Court and if he was a guarantor then naturally respondent No,1 was entitled to issue a notice for recovery and demand and that notice cannot be construed to have caused defamation. In the circumstances the order of the learned Vth Additional District Judge seems to be proper, hence this revision has no force and is dismissed.