' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.---Through this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 23-7 2007 passed by learned Judge Banking Court-IV, Lahore and prayed that the respondents be directed to render detailed statement of account showing month-wise entries pertaining to the amount of gratuity, provident fund deducted from the salaries of the petitioners along with profit/mark-up etc.
2. Brief facts succinctly required for the determination of this writ petition are that the petitioner being Ex-employee of respondent No,2/Bank had applied for two finance facilities which are Staff Housing Finance and Personal Computer Finance. The said finances were duly sanctioned and availed by the petitioner. It is stated that after the petitioner leaving the Bank respondents on 4-10- 2003 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,11,77,814 with regard to the facilities before the learned Banking Court, Lahore which the petitioner duly contested by filing application for leave to defend, the same was dismissed and resultantly respondent No, 1/learned Banking Court passed a decree for a sum of Rs,11,77,814.54 on 17-2-2005. The petitioner assailed the same by filing R.F.A. No,102 of 2005 before this Court. In the said appeal decree was modified and the claim of the liquidated damages and mark-up for cushion period was deleted from the claimed amount. Thereafter, respondent No,1 proceeded with the execution petition in which the petitioner filed an application for providing a detail of her salary, gratuity and provident fund which were lying with respondent No,2/Bank and consequently for its adjustment towards the decretal amount. It is stated that learned Banking Judge/respondent No,1 without seeking reply from respondent No,2 dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 24-11-2006. The said order was called in question before this Court through Writ Petition No,13083 of 2006 which passed the following order on 7-12-2006:--- "An executing Court prefers to adopt a lawful mode of recovery that bring early result. If this can be accomplished with the consent and cooperation of the judgment-debtors then such course has advantage. It is therefore directed that the petitioner may approach the learned Banking Court with her offer to make a substantial amount of Rs,300,000 or so within one week so as to seek the learned Banking Court's indulgence in respect of the sale of her property."
' Thereafter, the petitioner had also filed a Review Petition No,89 of 2006 before this Court in which following corrections had been allowed:-- "This application is made to seek the correction of two figures recorded in the order dated 7-12- 2006 on the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits firstly, the appellate Court reduced the amount decreed by the learned Banking Court and secondly that the petitioner's dues in respect of provident fund and gratuity are not known to the petitioner and have to be ascertained from the record of the respondent-Bank. Therefore, amounts noted in the order in the foregoing behalf require correction."
' It is further stated that in the above perspective the petitioner filed an application under section 5(8) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 with the averments that respondent No,2 submitted an arbitrary and vague statement in the Court, which does not contain the actual and true record of amount of salaries, gratuity and provident fund of the petitioner which the petitioner owes towards the bank thus causing a substantial loss to the applicant hence in order to get the true picture of the matter and to ascertain the liabilities of the parties and rendering the true statement of amount of outstanding salaries, gratuity and provident fund etc. Of the petitioner to produce before the Court. It is stated that the said application had been dismissed without calling for the reply from respondents in arbitrary manner as such the instant order is illegal and the same be set aside and that the respondents be directed to render detailed statement of account showing month-wise entries pertaining to the amount of gratuity, provident fund deducted from the salaries of the petitioner along with profit/mark-up etc.
3. On the other hand this writ petition has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent No,2 stating that the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the Article-199 Clause-5 of the Constitution Of Islamic Republic of Pakistan wherein writ petition is not maintainable against a private corporate body. Moreover, the factual position is that a decree has been passed in the year 2005 against the petitioner and she failed to satisfy the decree and has been successfully frustrating the same by filing miscellaneous applications before Banking Court and by filing repeated writ petitions before this Court. It is stated that in Writ Petition No,13083 of 2006, vide order dated 7-12-2006 a direction was given to the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs,3,00,000. The petitioner had not complied with the order instead she filed a review petition and thereafter also the petitioner failed to make any payment towards the satisfaction of the decree. It is further stated that the matter with regard to the gratuity and provident fund etc. Are pending sub judice before the civil Court in the suit for declaration along with recovery of Rs,1,00,00,000. In view of the same the petitioner has to establish her case before the civil Court as the same cannot be adjusted towards the satisfaction of decree before proper adjudication and determination of the same by civil Court. In view of the same the impugned order dated 23-7-2007 passed by respondent No,2 is a perfect order. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to exercise the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is not maintainable before this Court so far as the merits are concerned and the petitioner has no case and the same be dismissed.
4. I have heard the arguments on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner a well as learned counsel for respondent No,2. It is admitted fact that the decree had been passed by learned banking Court on 17-2-2005 and thereafter the appeal filed by the petitioner had also been disposed of by High Court with modification and the execution petition of respondent No,2/Bank is pending before executing Court/respondent No,1 and that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration along with damages of Rs,1,00,00,000 and the relief sought for in this petition is the subject-matter of the suit as such no direction can be issued by this Court. Moreover, in execution petition the adjustment sought for can only be made with the consent of the decree-holder. The decree-holder does not consent to the same as the civil suit of the petitioner with regard to the same is sub judice before the civil Court therefore, the impugned order has rightly been passed by respondent No,1 and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order. Further, this writ petition is also not maintainable in view of Article 199 clause (5) of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan because respondent No,2 being a private Bank is a private corporate body and does not fall within the domain of Federal Government or Provincial Government as such this writ petition is dismissed on both accounts, being not maintainable as well having no merits. There is no order as to costs.