' Brief facts out of which present application arises are that respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Against the appellant for the recovery of an amount of Rs,25,00,000 only on the basis of a pro note in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, who decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 14-12-2004. Applicant being aggrieved filed R.F.A.. No, 22 of 2005 through Mr. Arif Ch., Advocate along with C.M. No,1-C of 2005, which was fixed before this Court on 9-3-2005. The following order was passed on C.M.A. No,1-C of 2005.
"Operation of the impugned judgment and decree is suspended subject to the condition that appellant/applicant shall deposit the decretal amount before the executing Court within three months from today. The executing Court shall deposit the same immediately in same national profit-bearing scheme. The party who succeeds shall be entitled to decretal amount along with the profit. In case the applicant/ appellant fails to deposit the said amount within the prescribed period then the decree holder is . Well within his right to get the decree be executed through process of law, subject to notice."
' Applicant filed C.M. No,5 of 2005 through Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, Advocate, which was decided vide order dated 28-5-2008 and the application was allowed to the extent of calling the record of the original case. Operative part of the order is as follows:-- "Since this is first appeal, therefore, office is directed to requisition the record to the extent of this appeal and not the record of execution proceedings."
'Thereafter, the case was fixed on 26-5-2005. Original counsel Mr. Arif Ch. Advocate had sent a written request for adjournment, which was allowed vide order dated 26-5-2005.
Applicant/appellant has filed C.M. No,6 of 2005 with the following prayer:-- ' It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that his learned Court may kindly be pleased to stay execution proceedings and the security already furnished may kindly be considered as security for the purpose of present appeal."
2. Learned counsel of the applicant submits that applicant/appellant was granted leave to appear and defend the case before the learned trial Court with the direction to furnish surety equivalent to the suit amount, therefore, security already furnished by the appellant/applicant be treated as security for the purposes of present appeal. He further submits that order dated 9-3-2005 was passed by omission to notice to the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Malik Gull Hassan and Company's case (1996 SCM R 237), wherein the honourable Supreme Court has laid down principle that the word security used in subsection (5) of section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 will include any security equivalent to the amount of the judgment debt to the satisfaction of the Court. It will also include even the security which was originally accepted against the loan. The Honourable Supreme Court approved the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Karachi High Court in Usman Hussain's case (PLD 1988 Karachi 628). He further submits that this Court has ample power to review the order dated 9-3-2005 in view of the omission to notice of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Malik Ghulam Hassan's case, supra (1996 SCM R 237). In support of his contention he relies on Faqir Muhammad Khan's case (PLD 1973 SC 110). He further urges that this Court has ample jurisdiction to modify the order dated 9-3-2005 in view of section 94 of C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C. As section 11 is not attracted in such type of orders which are interim in nature. In support of his contention he relied upon PLD 1963 Lahore 566 Amanullah Khan's case. He further urges that in case the order dated 9- 3-2005 will remain in field then it tantamounts that the right of appeal before this Court be automatically denied. In support of his contention he relied upon PLD 1959 SC 364 Messrs. Eastern Syndicate's case.
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the applicant and perused the record ourselves.
4. Similar controversy has already been raised in C.M. No,1-C of 1998 in R. F. A .No,138-98, which was decided after considering all the judgments on the subject including Malik Ghulam Hassan's case Supra (1996 SCM R 237) vide order dated 20-10-1998 by the Division Bench of this Court comprising of our learned brother Mian Allah Nawaz, J. (as he then was) and one of us (Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J) reported as 1999 PCTLR 565, Kashmir Chemical Industries Limited v. National Bank of Pakistan. It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment of the Division Bench in Kashmir Chemical Industries's case in up held by the Honourable Supreme Court. The order dated 9-3-2005 is in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid case in Kashmir Chemical Industries. It is also settled principle of law that earlier judgment of equal bench in the High Court on the same point is binding upon the second bench and if a contrary view had to be taken, then, request for constitution of a larger bench should have been made as the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in Multi Line Associate's case (1995 SCM R 362).
5. In view of the what has been discussed above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order dated 9-3-2005 and for reasons recorded in the judgment of the Division Bench in case reported as 1999 PCTLR 565 supra this application has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.