' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---It is common ground between the parties that respondent No,1 company was wound up by order of this Court dated 17-7-2001 passed in C.O.No,27-2001. The appellant had filed a recovery suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Against the company and its directors before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kasur. In view of the aforesaid winding up order the learned trial Court has by the impugned order dated 21-12-2002 returned the plaint in the suit for its presentation before the competent Court. This was done on the presumption that section 316(2) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 required such matter to be heard by the Companies Bench of this Court.
2. The point involved in the appeal is answered by settled law regarding jurisdiction. The view that a civil claim against a company under liquidation must necessarily be heard by the Companies Bench of the High Court is not supported by any law. The impugned order is wrong in concluding so. Claims for recovery of money filed against a company under liquidation must be established before the Court of competent jurisdiction; the decrees on such claims are to be filed before and ranked by the official liquidator of the company under liquidation. In the circumstances, the competent Court empowered to adjudicate claims under Order =MI, C.P.C. Must hear and decide the suit filed by the appellant.
3. In view of the afore-noted error made by the learned trial Court, the return of the plaint in the appellants' suit was wrong and misconceived. The said suit shall be registered in the record of the trial Court with effect from the original date of its filing for its disposal in accordance with law. .