SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This writ petition seeks to challenge order dated 14.03.2013 passed by the banking court whereby the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent bank filed a suit against the petitioner and the proforma respondents. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner made an application seeking a direction to the respondent bank to reschedule/renew the finance facility in the light of order dated 14.12.2010 passed in writ petition No. 13351 of 2010. The said application was dismissed hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner prior to the filing of the suit had filed Writ Petition No.13351 of 2010 seeking rescheduling of dues on the terms granted to certain other customers of the respondent bank. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14.12.2010 with a direction to the petitioner to file an application with the respondent bank and also directed the respondent bank to pass an order on the same. It was further submitted that. Criminal Original No.857-W of 2011 was also filed as the respondent bank had failed to grant the rescheduling package to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the respondent bank, on the other hand, submitted that the application filed by the petitioner has since been decided and the request for rescheduling package was declined. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as on account of stay order granted in these proceedings no progress till date has been made in the recovery suit filed by the respondent bank.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. It is settled law that during the pendency of the leave application, the defendants are precluded from filing any miscellaneous application. It is also an admitted position that the banking court under the provisions of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 has no jurisdiction to direct a financial institution to reschedule the dues of customers. The petitioner, therefore, made an application which was not at all maintainable and was rightly dismissed by the banking court. Be that as it may, the respondent bank has already declined the request of the petitioner for rescheduling of dues and as such this writ petition is not maintainable. It is also a settled position of law that a writ petition against interim order passed by the court acting under a special law which does not provide the right of appeal is not maintainable.
6. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The banking court seized of the suit filed by the respondent bank against the pro-forma respondents is directed to decide the said suit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.