1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- This writ petition has arisen out of the facts that the present petitioners borrowed huge loans from the National Bank of Pakistan (hereinafter be called respondent-bank) and failed to return the same to the respondent-bank, as such the respondent-bank filed civil suits for recovery of loans against the present petitioners under "Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001" (hereinafter called the Ordinance). Since the claim against the present petitioners was exceeding fifty million rupees as envisaged in section 2(b)(II) of the Ordinance the honourable Chief Judge of this Court nominated Banking Court and entrusted the suits to me to proceed the suits vide order sheet dated 27-4-2011. I proceeded the suits accordingly and during pendancy of the suits before me the petitioners tiled the instant writ petition before the honorable Chief Judge of this Court. The learned Chief Judge of this Court after receiving the writ petition stopped trial of the suits before me vide order dated 13-5-2011 and also constituted Divisional Bench to hear the writ petition as the writ petition pertains to the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. The petitioners have built the writ petition inter alia on two core issues (a) That the nomination and entrustment of the suits to any Judge of this Court to try the same is derogatory to the section 2(b)
(II) which envisages only "High Court" and not the Chief Court, (b) That this Court has no concept of intra-Court appeal and if the nominated honorable Judge of this Court passes any decree against the petitioners they are being deprived of their valuable right to go into intra-Court appeal. The respondent-bank met the writ petition by appearing and filing written comments before this Court, whereby the respondent 1-3 denied the grounds taken in the writ petition with the contention that this Court exercises all powers of a "High Court" and mere nomenclature as "Chief Court" does not make any difference. Particularly when this Court enjoys appellate jurisdiction under general law i,e, under criminal procedure code and civil procedure Court as "High Court" and a number of cases are being disposed of by the honorable judges of this Court daily as a routine judicial work under the cited laws as Judges of the "High Court".
3. Indeed this Court has been given nomenclature as "Chief Court" under the Article 69 GILGIT- BALTISTAN (EMPOWERMENT AND SELF-GOVERNANCE) ORDER, 2009. (hereinafter referred to as the Order) and it is also obvious that this. Court assumes and exercises all powers of a "High Court" under general laws extended, to Gilgit-Baltistan and thousands of cases have been decided as but this important and core issue has been taken for the first time in the instant writ petition as to whether this Court can exercise the powers of a "High Court" under general or special laws and the issue relates to the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as such the honorable Chief Judge of this Court felt serious consequences of the findings on the subject hence constituted Full Bench 'to hear the writ petition but afterward the honorable Chief Judge excluded himself and constituted this division bench to dispose of the matter.
4. ' We also felt the serious consequences of the findings of the instant writ petition as such we arrayed (1) the federal government through Attorney General of Pakistan. (2) The Chairman of GilgitBaltistan Council through Secretary concerned.(3) Provincial government of Gilgit-Baltistan through Chief Secretary as respondents and also noticed to the President Supreme Appellate Bar GB and President GilgitBaltistan "High Court" Bar Association to appear and assist the Court in the matter, meanwhile an eminent advocate practicing in Gilgit-Baltistan is appointed Deputy.
5. Attorney General for Gilgit-Baltistan. So we noticed him to attend the Court on behalf of the Federal Government but he excused to attend the Court unless he is being directed by the Federal Government to attend the Court. We appointed some senior advocates also as friends of the Court to appraise the Court on the subject. The learned A.A.-G. Attended the Court without submitting any written comments despite several notices, the Federal Government, the GilgitBaltistan Council as well as provincial Government of Gilgit-Baltistan did not give a warm response to meet the above important questions arising in the petition relating to "the Order" and the writ petition could not be hung awaiting a responsible attitude to show by the respondents 4-5 and 6 so we heard the arguments today.
6. ' The learned counsel referred section 2(b)(II) of "the Ordinance" wherein the word "High Court" has been stated by the legislature' to have jurisdiction to entertain suits under the Ordinance as Banking Court. The learned counsel- for the petitioner again referred Article 71 of the "the Order" which provides jurisdiction of this Court the same is reproduced as under:---
71. (Jurisdiction of Chief Court.--- (1) "The Chief Court shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred on it by this order or by any other law ".)
7. ' Plain perusal of the Article 71 of the order transpires that this Court shall have jurisdiction as is conferred on it by" the order" or conferred any jurisdiction on it by any other law and the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that since the Ordinance confers jurisdiction on High Court and does not confer any jurisdiction on Chief Court to entertain suits under the' Ordinance as Banking Court as such this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suits under the Ordinance as Banking Court in terms of section 2(b) (II) of the Ordinance.
8. ' We asked the learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to meet the above legal issue raised by the counsel for the petitioners, who without going into legal construction and legal consequences of the above two provisions referred Order No,F&A11,3(1)/2001 wherein this Court has been given effect as if reference to "High Court" and he also referred Article 84 of "the order" which provides safeguard to the laws applied in G.B (Northern Areas) prior to the commencement of the order. We after going through the cited notification/Order, have reached to the conclusion that, this Court has been empowered to entertain the suits under the Ordinance by the competent authority as "High Court" and the issue has been met by the respondents properly but at the same time we are of the opinion that, the issue can be fatal, if raised in any appropriate case as such we direct the competent authority having legislative power for Gilgit-Baltistan to look into the serious legal consequences of the issue and also direct to introduce amendments to the Article of the "order".
9. ' The point "b" raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners also having devoid of substance for the reason that, the Judge, nominated' by the Chief Justice to try Suits under the Ordinance, exercises jurisdiction of Banking Court under the Ordinance and acts not as Judge of High Court in its ordinary jurisdiction as such any order/judgment/ decree passed by him can be appealed against before this Court under section 22 of "the Ordinance", notwithstanding this Court has no rules of intra-court appeals. On the point we have been guided by the judgment given by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported 2002 SCMR page 496.
10. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the order dated 27-4-2011 is valid and the single Judge of this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suits under the Ordinance filed before him and the parties are entitle under section 22 of the Ordinance to avail right of appeal when the single Judge of this Court passes an Order as Banking Court, the judicial branch of this Court is directed to fix a date for trial of the suits under the Ordinance by the nominated Judge and also supply attested copies of this judgment to all respondents.