AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- Through this petition, the Petitioner Bank has impugned order dated 01.11.2017 passed by Respondent' No, 1, Judge Banking Court No, VII, Lahore.
2. The basic grievance of the Petitioner is that it moved an application under Section 16 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("F10") for attachment of the property of Respondent No, 4, Irshad Butt which was dismissed by Respondent No, 1 vide order dated 01.11.2017, impugned before us.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner Bank has filed a recovery suit in the amount of Rs, 52,118,209.44 in which PLA has been filed by the defendants and the case is now pending at the stage of arguments on the PLA. In the meanwhile, the Bank has also moved an application under Section 16 of the FIO on the ground that its securities were insufficient to secure the facilities and in order to ensure that the Petitioner Bank will be able to recover the amounts due to it, the Petitioner traced property of Respondent No, 4 for which it sought attachment.
4. The Respondents No, 2 to 6 filed their reply to the application. Subsequently Respondent No 1 dismissed the application on the ground that the property cannot be attached as the judgment and decree has not yet been passed. As such there is no material available on the record to suggest that there is any real danger that the Respondent will remove himself from the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also found that there was no reason to accept that the mortgaged property is insufficient to secure the finance facility and in the event of judgment and decree in favour of the Bank, it will not be able to recover the decretal amount from the mortgaged property. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that Section 16 of the FIO permits the Court to pass, order for attachment before passing its judgment, grant injunction and appoint receiver. He stated that in this case the Petitioner moved an application seeking attachment before judgment in order to ensure that the Petitioner will be able to recover the amount due to it.
5. On behalf of Respondent No, 7 it is argued that the subject property is mortgaged with Respondent No, 7 Bank by way of mortgage deposit of title document, therefore the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the application.
6. On behalf of Respondents No, 2 to 6 it is argued that the application filed by the Petitioner is vague, without any details. Also there is no proof of any shortfall or insufficient security. There is also no apprehension that the Respondent will run away or will alienate any property. Learned counsel further submitted that the application WE rightly dismissed for being premature as the suit is S. pending and as such at this stage the Respondents being guarantors/owe no liability which can be presumed against them.
7. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have gone through the record.
8. We note that the learned Judge Banking Court has rightly dismissed the application of the Petitioner Bank being premature. A bare review of the application itself shows that no reasons have been provided whatsoever in the application as to why the Petitioner Bank wants to secure its finance facility and how it claims that it has insufficient security to secure the facilities provided to the Respondents. Furthermore, the suit is still pending and at this stage it cannot be said that the suit will be decreed in favour of the Petitioner Bank. The impugned order considered the arguments of the Petitioner and dismissed the application on the ground that there is no prima facie case made out nor is there any apprehension or probability expressed in the application for alienation of the property or that the Respondent will remove himself from the jurisdiction of the Court.
9. Under the circumstances no illegality is made out in the impugned order. The instant petition is dismissed.