AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- Through this First Appeal the Appellant Bank has impugned order dated 27.03.2014 passed by the Judge Banking Court-IV, Lahore in an application filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("CPC").
2. The basic ground for filing this appeal by the Appellant is that a suit was filed in the amount of Rs, 2,104,441/- before the Judge Banking Court-IV, Lahore in which the judgment and decree was passed on 01.11.2008 in the amount of Rs, 150,129,35/-, which is against the statement of account and shows that the amount of Rs, 2,104,441.45 is owed to the Bank. Learned counsel argued that the only grievance of the Appellant is that the decree has been passed contrary to the statement of account and in this regard an application was moved by the Appellant Bank before the Judge Banking Court-IV, Lahore under Section 152 of the CPC in which reply was submitted by the Respondents. Thereafter the impugned order dated 27.03.2014 was passed by the Judge Banking Court-IV, Lahore whereby the said application was dismissed on the ground that if the Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree remedy of appeal is available to it. Learned counsel has placed reliance on "Messrs Malik & Company through Sole Proprietor and others v. Muslim Commercial Bank through Salah-ud-Din, Branch Manager and others" (2002 CLD 1621) and "Habib Bank Limited v. Tauqeer Ahmed Siddiqui and another (2009 CLC 312).
3. At the very outset, we note that the basic grievance of the Appellant is against the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2008 being not as per the statement of account. The appropriate remedy was in the form of a Regular First Appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance"). The cases relied upon are not relevant to the controversy at hand as in both the cases, the judgments and decree were modified through Regular First Appeals filed under the Ordinance. The executing Court cannot go beyond the judgment and decree. Even otherwise the impugned order finds that the Court considered the statement of account and decreed the suit accordingly and any change cannot be made under the garb of a typographical error. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned executing court.
Therefore, under the circumstances, no ground for interference is made out. Appeal stands dismissed.