KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that alternate remedy is available to the petitioner by way of filing a civil suit before the learned Banking Court. He has referred to sections 9, 2(d) and 2(e) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and relies upon 2004 CLD 257 (Karachi) and 2005 CLD 1662 (Lahore). Further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and this petition should be dismissed; that there is factual controversy in this case, as the matter is not only qua payment of some instalments.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no factual controversy and it is a simple matter-of payment of four instalments, which are due against the petitioner, which he is ready to pay today. He relies upon Muhammad Aslam v. Senior Member (Colonies)
Board of Revenue, Punjab and others 2004 SCM R 1587.
3. Learned Additional A.-G. Supports the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. As far as filling of suit before the learned Banking Court is concerned, it would take years and years and the car, which has been taken into custody by the respondents, would be damaged. The petitioner is ready to pay outstanding instalments to the Bank. No factual controversy is A involved in this case, therefore, the petitioner is directed to pay four outstanding instalments to the Bank within two days and the Bank thereafter would release the car forthwith to the petitioner. It is made clear that in case in future any default is made in payment of instalments by the petitioner, the Bank has a.
Right to confiscate the car. This petition stands disposed of in the above terms.