1. 'ANWAR HUSSAIN, J.---By way of this Appeal, the Appellant has impugned the Order dated 20.08.2013, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, finally dismissing the Appellant's Application (CMA No,425/2012) under Order XXI, Rules 58 and 62, read with section 151, C.P.C. And under section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, in Execution Application No,43/2011 (Banking Suit No,53/2008).
2. 'Briefly, the Respondent No,1 filed said Banking Suit in this Court against the Respondent No,2 and others for Recovery of an amount of Rs,258,383,690/- under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, which was decreed vide Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.2010, to the extent of Rs,196,111,501/-. As such the Respondent No,1, initiated Execution Proceedings, wherein firstly on 11.05.2011, the learned Single Judge directed the Nazir of this Court to attach the assets of the Judgment Debtors/Respondents, including the Bank Accounts and amounts payable by the National Highway Authority (novte Appellant) to the Judgment Debtors/Respondents, to the extent of Decretal Amount. Then by Order dated 31.01.2012, the Appellant/National Highway Authority, was directed to transmit 196 Million to the Nazir of this Court.
3. The Appellant on 07.08.2012, moved said CMA No, 425/2012, for recalling the Order dated 11.05.2011, and other subsequent Orders, which was opposed by way of Counter Affidavit of the Respondent No,
1. Then during pendency of the said Application it was reported that in view of such orders the Appellant have retained/withheld the amount of Rs,196 Million, and the learned Single Judge vide Order dated 28.11.2012, 'directed the Appellant/National Highway Authority to deposit the withheld amount with the Nazir of this Court, which would not be released to the Appellant/National Highway Authority till the decision of the said Application. Later on, as per the Order dated 26.06.2013, the Appellant undertook to deposit a sum of Rs,149,821,443/- by way of Pay Order No,BBB 10036526 dated 25.06.2013 with the Nazir of this Court and it was directed that until the issue of shortfall amount is decided, the Appellant would not make any further payment to the Respondent No,2/J.D and retain the amount of shortfall.
4. 'Earlier to that on 23.01.2013, the Appellant filed Special High Court Appeal No,.08/2013, thereby impugned the Order dated 28.11.2012, which Appeal vide Order dated 05.03.2013, was dismissed and concluding part of the said Order is as under:- " Contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that may be worth consideration is that the contingency amount cannot be claimed as a crystalized liability of the judgment debtor unless the contingency is performed or happened. In the instant case at least for the dates mentioned above contingency i.e, performance of the contract to a limited extent was duly made, verified and after measurement on date mentioned against such payment the amount has been released subsequent to the contingency and even on their own showing the amount of Rs,196 Million has already been attached as per their own letter dated 28.10.2011 available at page 103 of the file. This change of heart or if at all is dawning of the correct factual position occurred to the appellant four months after such letter as reflected from letter dated 23.02.2012 wherein it is stated that the lien has been-marked on the amount that may be due and payable. No explanation has been offered and if at all there is any explanation the same can always be offered to the learned Single Judge who is also seized of the matter and the application is not yet decided, therefore, in our opinion this is not a case where any, 'interference could be made; case is still open to the appellant to satisfy the Court as to whether the amount is neither due nor payable to the judgment debtor. The documents available on record prima facie show that substantial amount, if not Rs,196 Million, was not only due but hers also been paid to the respondent No,2 which needs to be explained to the learned Single Judge. We do not see any merit in this appeal which is Accordingly dismissed along with pending applications. "
5. 'Ultimately the learned Single Judge after hearing the Parties through their respective Counsel dismissed the said CMA of the Appellant, who by way of this Appeal has impugned the same.
6. 'It is pertinent to mention here that the said Judgment and Decree have been impugned by way of High Court Appeals Nos. 135/2011 and No,122/2012, filed by Respondent No,2, pending before this Court.
7. 'We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Parties and gone through the impugned Order and the record available.
8. 'The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Impugned Order is garnishee one, discretionally not legal and proper and the Appellant has been seriously prejudiced.
9. 'Per Counsel, there are other properties lying with Respondent No, I, and the amount, which was lying with the Objector was payable to the Judgment Debtor for carrying out the Work under Contract dated 07.11.2009, for rehabilitation/up-gradation of Jalalpur Pir-wala, Uch Sharif Section of Shujaabad-TMP Road, District Multan, Package-III, which amount is not the "Asset" within the meaning of Section 19 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and title and claim of the Respondent No,2, was conditional subject to completion of the Work under Contract and in view of withholding of the said amount, as per Order of the Court, the Respondent No,2, since July/August 2011, has completely stopped the Work on the said Project, which is now in standstill position, thereby tremendous financial loss is being caused to the said Project.
10. 'Learned Counsel for Respondent No,2, submits that his main Appeal, against Judgment and Decree in the matter, is pending before this Court and further submits that in terms of section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the amount could not be attached.
11. 'Whereas the learned Counsel for Respondent No,1, submits that the first Order dated 11.05.2011, for the attachment of the amount in question has not been impugned and only the Appellant has filed the said CMA No, 425/2012, for recalling of the same and prior to the disposal of the said CMA, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 28.11.2012, has directed the Appellant to deposit withheld amount with the Nazir of this Court, which should not be released to Appellant till decision of said CMA and the Appellant impugned the same by way of Special High Court Appeal No, 08/2013, which has been dismissed, by way of the Order reproduced hereinabove. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned Order in terms of the Section 60 of the C.P.C., and observed that after the Order dated 11.05.2011, some amounts have been paid on different occasions by the Appellant and, as such, does not require any interference by way of this Appeal.
12. The case in hand is for recovery under the Banking Laws i.e, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which provides speedy measures for the recovery of outstanding loans and as per section 1.9(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the Executing Court has been given discretion to execute the Decree in accordance with the provisions of C.P.C. Or any other manner it may deemed fit, for which reference can be made on the case of Nawazish Latif Bhatti v. Allied Bank of Pakistan reported in 2004 CLD 92 (D.B), wherein reference has been placed on the case of Agha Attaullah reported in 2002 CLD 1550 (D.B). The Respondent No,2/Bank has obtained a Decree, under execution in the matter, whereby the outstanding amount is to be recovered from the Respondent No,2/J.D, so such Decree is a money Decree and for its execution section 60 of C.P.C., as per its bare reading, would apply for which one can refer on the case of Shambhoo Khitniji Khoja v. Baloch Roze Shambe reported in *AIR 1947 Sindh 32.
13. 'Admittedly on number of occasions the Appellant has paid some amounts out of the amount in question, which was available with the Appellant at that time and its Attachment Order has not been challenged, which was the basic one, but the Appellant has earlier impugned the subsequent Order dated 28.11.2012, which was consequential one and Appeal against the same was disposed of in terms of the Order reproduced hereinabove. Thereafter, the Appellant's said CMA has been finally dismissed by way of Impugned Order, whereby the learned Single Judge while rejecting the Appellant's said Application has rightly relied upon section 60 of the C.P.C., which provides attachment of the Properties including the money belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, he has a disposing power, which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf, and as such observed that in terms of section 19 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
14. Ordinance, 2001, the term "Asset of the Judgment-Debtor" mean and include the amount payable by the Appellant to the Judgment-Debtor, even otherwise the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.5.2011, directed the Nazir to attach the assets of the J.Ds, including Bank Accounts and amounts payable by the National Highway Authority/Appellant to the extent of decreetal amount, so after attachment of amount in question in terms of section 60, C.P.C, then its transmission and deposit with the Nazir of this Court is legal and proper.
15. 'The Appellant has complied with the order dated 11.5.2011, and subsequent orders in respect of the amount in question passed by the learned Single Judge and the Respondent No,2, have not objected to the such orders and as such the Appellant's said C.M.A No, 425/2012, has been rightly rejected by way of Impugned Order.
16. 'Moreover, as per learned Counsel for Respondent No,1, major work of the said Project has already been completed by and major payment have been made to the Respondent No,2, as such, no prejudice would be caused to the Appellant, which facts have not been rebutted by Appellant or Respondent No,2, who has also not challenged the Order impugned in this Appeal.
17. In view of the above, this Appeal is devoid of any merits and, as such, needs no interference, which is dismissed accordingly along with listed Applications.