Pakistan Case Law← Search
2017 CLD 246

MUHAMM AD AYUB vs JUDGE BANKING COURT GUJRANWALA and others

Citation2017 CLD 246
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.W. P. No, 37827 of 2016
Date2016-12-01
Judge(s)Shahid Karim, Jawad Hassan
ResultPetition Dismissed

ORDER

' Through this constitutional petition, the Petitioner has called in question interim order dated 31.10.2016 passed by Respondent No,1 Judge Banking Court-I, Gujranwala, whereby Court Auctioneer was directed to conduct auction proceedings accordingly.

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent No,2, instituted a suit on 06.08.2013 for recovery of Rs,26,18,949/- along with costs and costs of funds against the Petitioner and the Respondents Nos.3 to 6. Respondent No,5/defendant No,3 filed application for leave to defend and the Respondent No,2/Plaintiff Bank also filed reply thereto. However, the Petitioner, Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 6/defendants Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 neither appeared nor filed any application for leave to defend the suit under section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)

Ordinance, 2001 (F.I.O., 2001), therefore, ex parte proceedings were initiated against them. The said suit was decreed by the Banking Court on 06.06.2016 against the Petitioner jointly and severally with costs and costs of funds as per section 3 of the F.I.O., 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner, filed an application for setting aside of ex parte Judgment and Decree on 04.10.2016 in which the Judge directed the Court Auctioneer vide order dated 31.10.2016 to auction the mortgaged property accordingly and adjourned the case to 21.12.2016. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved of the said order has filed this petition.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. The impugned order has been examined by us and we have noticed that in the impugned order the Banking Court has not passed any final or interim order because in this order, the Banking Court, has only directed for the reply, and for the auction of the property to the Court Auctioneer.

Hence, the application of the petitioner is still pending in which reply is yet to be filed. Since, in the impugned order, the Banking Court has not decided the /is in hand, therefore, we do not interfere in the matter and direct the Banking Court to decide the application pending before it within two weeks from the receipt of copy of this order. Writ petition being not maintainable is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search