1. ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by learned Judge Banking Court-VII, Lahore, whereby petition for leave to appear and defend ("PLA") filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order passed by learned Banking Court is misconceived and has been passed without considering the actual facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that Court has committed material irregularity in refusing leave to defend to the petitioner.
3. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at limine stage. Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance") provides appeal against the order passed by Banking Court. The subsection 22(1) and (6) of the Ordinance are reproduced hereunder:- <i>"22. Appeal. ---(1) Subject to subsection (2), any person aggrieved by any judgment, decree, sentence, or final order passed by a Banking Court may, within thirty days of such judgment, decree, sentence or final order prefer an appeal to the High Court.
(6) No appeal, review or revision shall lie against an order accepting or rejecting an application for leave to defend, or any interlocutory order of the Banking Court which does not dispose of the entire case before the Banking Court other than an order passed under subsection (11) of section 15 or subsection (7) of section 19." </i> Perusal of subsections (1) and (6) of section 22 of the Ordinance shows that no appeal, review or revision lies against an order which accept or reject an application for leave to defend. The Ordinance has explicitly barred the remedy of appeal, review or revision against such an order A and therefore, in case a constitutional petition is entertained against such an order, it will amount to circumvent the intention of the legislation and to frustrate the express provision of law. The learned Division Bench of this Court in <u><i>Bank of Punjab v. International Ceramics Ltd. and 4 others </u></i> (PLD 2013 Lahore 487) while dealing with similar issue held that in absence of blatant illegality in the order, the constitutional petition is not maintainable against dismissal of PLA. The relevant observation of learned Division Bench is re-produced hereunder:- <i>"A bare reading of section 22(1) and (6) shows that no appeal, review or revision lies against an order which accepts or rejects an application for leave to defend. Therefore, the FIO has explicitly barred the remedy of appeal, review or revision against such an order. The question that arises is whether in such a situation a constitutional petition is maintainable by a person aggrieved by an order granting or rejecting leave. Section 10 of the FIO provides for the right to file an application for leave to defend. In terms of section 10(3) an application for leave to defend is in the form of a written statement and contain a summary of the substantial questions of law and fact for which evidence needs to be recorded. In the event that leave is granted under section 10(10) of the F10, the Court shall fix a date for recording of evidence. In the event that leave is not granted section 10(11) of the FIO provides that a decree should be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. Therefore, the FIO contemplates expeditious decisions on matters relating to Financial Institution. The intent can be seen in section 13 of the FIO which provides that in a suit where leave is granted the case should be disposed of within 90 days. Hence, section 22 prevents appeal, review or revision of an order granting or rejecting leave, so that cases can be decided as soon as possible once the stage of considering the PLA is over. In such a situation, filing of a constitutional petition against the order granting or rejecting leave would defeat the objective of the F10, especially section 22. It has been held in case titled Messrs Sajid Brothers and Co. through Proprietor and 2 others v. Manager, Allied Bank Limited and 8 others (2012 CLD 1858) that:- </u></i> "In the present case, the Banking Court has decided the application for leave to defend the suit of respondents Nos,5 and 6 in doing so has struck off the names of these respondents from the list of defendants. Against such order, the appeal is expressly barred by law and thus there is no warrant for entertaining a constitutional petition as it will not only amount to circumvention the law but will also frustrate the same."
4. 4.The same view was also expressed by this Court in Ghulam Sarwar v. National Bank of Pakistan and others (2007 CLD 530), Messrs Mutual Trading Co. (Pvt.) and others v. Messrs Faisal Bank Ltd.
5. (2004 CLD 363) and Allah Ditta v. Addl. District Judge and others (1996 MLD 403). In this appeal, through impugned order, the PLA was dismissed because requirement of subsections (4) and (5) of section 10 of the Ordinance were not fulfilled and further the appellant/defendant not only admitted finance facility but was also agreed to pay the same. In the circumstances, the appellant has not shown any jurisdictional defect or blatant illegality in the impugned order.
6. 5.In view of above discussion, this petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limine.