KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J. Through this Revision Application, the applicants have challenged the judgment and Decree dated 11.10.2000 and 18.10.2000 respectively , passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge Dadu in Civil Appeal No.13 of 1995 (Re: ADBP and others v. Dr. Masood Ahmed and others) , whereby he dismissed the said appeal filed by the applicants/defendants and maintained the judgment and decree dated 16.01.1995 and 30.01.1995 respectively , passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mehar in F.C Suit No. 93 of 1993 (Re: Dr. Masood Ahmed and others v . ADBP and others ) in favour of the Respondent No.1/plaintif f.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No.1 purchased a Ford Tractor bearing Registration No.Ex-0669 through Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Mehar Branch, on loan and its delivery was entrusted to him on the condition that it remained in joint names i.e. owner and bank. The said tractor remained in his use and after passage of time, the tractor got into an accident and driver of the tractor also sustained injuries and such report was lodged with P.S Tharari Muhabbat. The respondent No.1 informed the bank about badly damaged tractor with request of repairing the same but no action was taken by the bank as well as insurance company , however , the respondent No.1 got the tractor repaired on his own cost, which incurred an amount of Rs.71,000/- and during repairing of the tractor , the respondent No.1 hired a tractor for threshing the wheat and ploughing the land and spent an amount of Rs.20,000/-. However , the respondent No.1 suffering a loss of Rs.93,000/- gave legal notices to the applicant/bank and insurance company but no response of such legal notices was given by the bank/insurance company , hence, the respondent No.1 filed suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.93,000/- before the trial Court, which was decided in his favour vide Judgment and Decree dated 16.01.1995 and 30.01.1995 respectively . Thereafter , the aggrieved party i.e. ADMP filed Civil Appeal before the lower Appellate Court. However , the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Dadu, dismissed the said appeal against the ADBP by maintaining the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mehar . Hence, the applicants/ADBP being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the afore referred judgments and decrees have filed the instant civil revision application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are against the law, facts and circumstances of the case; that the respondent No.1 is borrower and the applicants is the bank; that according to the provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance XIX of 1979, only the Special Court was competent to decide all the disputes betw een borrower and the bank and that the jurisdiction of all the other Courts is barred under this ordinance, thus, both the subordinate Courts while passing the impugned judgments and decrees have exercised the jurisdiction not vested upon them, hence, the impugned judgments and decrees are not sustainable under the law and the same are liable to be set aside; that the learned trial Court instead of deciding the suit should have returned the plaint of the suit to the respondent No. 1/borrower for presenting the same before the Court having competent jurisdictio n; that both the learned Courts below have committed gross illegalities and irregularities. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the judgments and decrees of the learned lower Courts and allowing the instant appeal. Learned Counsel in support of his arguments has relied upon the cases reported as 1994 SCMR 18 and 1994 MLD 1 186.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court are in accordance with law and the same are based upon sound reasons; that the applicants have come before this Court without any reasonable and trustworthy ground, therefore, he prays for maintaining the judgments and decre es passed by the Courts below . He has cited the case law reported as 1981 SCMR 143 and PLD 1979 (sic.) 97 .
5. Learned A.A.G did not support the impugned judgments and decrees.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and have also gone through the material available on record with their able assistance.
7. The applicants have, inter alia, challenged the concurrent findings of the two Courts below solely on the ground of the jurisdiction, therefore, before going into merits of the case it would be conducive to reaffirm the certain legal position(s), which every Court always keeps in mind while entertaining any lis presented before it for judicial determination.
8. There can be no denial to the fact that Special Courts/T ribunals are establishe d for resolving the disputes of a particular type and unless such objec tive is given due weight, the purpose of establishing such special Courts/T ribunal shall fail. Much weight stands attached with such special enactm ent when adjudication of such specific type of disputes is limited only by such special Courts/T ribunal, thereby barring all other Courts from taking cognizance on such type of disputes. I would add that no 'decision' shall be a legal decision if the Court/T ribunal, passing it lacks jurisdiction. Reference is made to the case of S.M. Waseem Ashraf v. Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 338 ), wherein it is held that; 6...... It is a settled law that any forum or court, which, if lacks jurisdiction adjudicates and decides a matter , such decision etc. shall be void and of no legal ef fect...
9. Since, it is another well established legal position that to decide a question of jurisdiction , the criterion shall always be the law and law alone which shall never stand prejudiced by acts/omissions of parties or their counsel and even by consents. As discussed above, lack of jurisdiction shall turn any decision into an 'illegality' , hence, the Courts must always show vigilance and legal approach before proceeding further which, otherwise, was/is their legal duty so as to avoid a long agony of proceedings resulting into nothing but an 'illegality' . Reference is made to the case of Multan Electric Power Company Ltd. v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (PLD 2006 SC 328), wherein it is observed that;
16. It is primarily the duty of the Courts and other adjudication forums to decide lis before them in accordance with law. The Courts and other forums are not relieved of this duty on account of an act or omission of a litigant or a lawyer . Also that jurisdiction on a Tribunal or Court is conferred by law and not by consent of the parties, express or implied.
10. I, thus, would conclude that when a Special Court is created, then the purpose of creating a single forum for resolving disputes of a particular type is not to be stultified by a resort to undue literalism and too careful parsing of statutory language.
11. Now, I shall turn myself to the merits of the case in hand. Since, the challenge to jurisdiction of two courts below is with reference to section 7 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 (Act XV of 1997), hence, it would be appropriate to reproduce the same, which reads as under:- "7. Powers of Banking Courts-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, Banking Court shall-
(a) in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction have all the powers vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908).
(b) in the exercise of its criminal jurisdictio n, try offences punishable under this Act and shall, for this purpose, have the same powers as are vested in a Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898): Provided that a Banking Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the banking company in respect of which the offence was committed.
(2) A Banking Court shall in all matters with respect to which the procedure has not been provided for in this Act, follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898).
(3) All proceedings before a Banking Court shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), and a Banking Court shall be deemed to 13F a Court for purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898).
(4) Subject to subsection (5) no Court other than a Banking Court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which the jurisdiction of a Banking Court extends under this Act, including a decision as to the existence or otherwise of a loan or finance and the execution of a decree passed by a Banking Court.
(5) Nothing in subsection (4) shall be deemed to af fect--
(a) the right of a banking company to seek any remedy before any Court or otherwise that may be available to it under the law by which the banking company may have been established; or
(b) the power of the banking company or jurisdiction of any Court such as is referred to in clause (a); or require the transfer to a Banking Court of any proceedings pending before any banking company or such Court immediately before coming into force of this Act.
(6) All proceedings, including proceedings following the filing of an arbitration award and proceedings for the execution of a decree within the jurisdiction of a Banking Court, pending in any Special Court constituted under the Baking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 (XIX of 1979), or under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits or Finances) Ordinance, 1997 (XXV of 1997), or any Banking Tribunal under the Banking Tribunals Act, 1984 (LVIII of 1984), or any other Court including a High Court shall stand transferred to or be deemed to he transferred to the Banking Court having jurisdiction. On transfer of proceedings under this subsection, a Banking Court shall require the attendance of the parties through notices issued in accordance with the procedure for service of summons or notice laid down in subsection (3) of section 9.
(7) In respect of proceedings transferred to a Banking Court under subsection (6) the Banking Court shall proceed from the stage which the proceedings had reached immediately prior to the transfer and shall not be bound to recall and rehear any witness and may act on the evidence already recorded or produced before the Court or Tribunal from which the proceedings were transferred."
12. As it pertains from subsection (4) of the above quoted section, no Court other than a Banking Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which the jurisdiction of a Banki ng Court extends under this Act, including a decision as to the existence or otherwise of a loan or finance and the execution of a decree passed by a Banking Court. Pima facie , the legislatures have made it clear that adjudication as to existence or otherwise of a loan or finance can only be made by Special Court, therefore, for all purposes and intents such exclusive jurisdiction shall include all the ancillary and/or incidental matter thereto . Legally , an ancillary or incidental matter cannot be determined without commenting/discussing the main matter , therefore, even if ancillary and incidental things are not specifically detailed yet the same shall be deemed to have been included. Reference is made to the case of Muhammad Anayat Gondal v. Registrar , Lahore High Court and another (2015 SCMR 821), wherein it is held as: "5..... Even otherwise, it is a settled principle of law that where a statute confers a jurisdiction on a Court or Tribunal, it also confers by implication the powers which are reasonably incidental and ancillary to ef fective exercise of jurisdiction.
13. Further , in the case of S. M. W aseem Ashraf (supra), while reaf firming this principle, it was held that; 7...Before parting, it may be observed that any forum or Court, which has no jurisdiction to decide the main matter on a case before it , has no jurisdiction to decide any ancillary and/or incidental matter thereto ...
14. Since, it is a matter of record that the respondent/plaintif f has claimed damages while basing his claim with reference to finance agreement, hence, such claim was/is always dependent upon existence or otherwise of such finance/loan, therefore, within the meaning of section 4 supra, the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Court was always barred.
15. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, it is observed that the ordinary civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the jurisdiction lay exclusively with the Banking Court, therefore , the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside. The suit filed by the respondent/plaintif f is deemed to be pending and the Senior Civil Judge, Mehar , is directed to return the plaint of the suit along with its annexures under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C., for want of jurisdiction, for presentation the same before the Banking Court having jurisdiction as per law. Civil Revision Application stands disposed of in the above terms.