' This civil revision is directed against an order of Ch. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, District Judge, Vehari, dated 5th April, 1980, whereby he rejected the petitioners' application for consolidation of two suits.
2. The relevant facts are that United Bank Limited (respondent No, 2 herein) had filed a suit for recovery of a loan of Rs, 6,28,574.55 from Zamindara Cotton Ginners Factory, Vehari (respondent No, 3 herein). The suit, which was pending in the Court of Mr. Faiz Rubbani, Civil Judge 1st Class, Vehari, was filed on the basis of mortgage of two properties, including house. Hafiz Shamsuddin (respondent No, 1 herein) is a partner of Zamindara Cotton Ginners Factory. The case of the peti tioners, who both are wives of Hafiz Shamsuddin, is that he (Hafiz Shamsuddin) had gifted the house in question to them in lieu of dower on a date prior to the execution of the mortgage-deed in favour of the aforesaid Bank. The petitioners have filed a suit for declaration that they Win the owners of the property, the said respondent No, I could not mortgage the same to the Bank. This suit is pending in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Azhar, Civil Judge, Vehari.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that both the aforementioned suits should be consolidated and heard by the same Court. The application which the petitioners had filed before the learned District Judge, Vehari, was dismissed on the ground that a similar application, which they had made earlier, had been dismissed because they had failed to deposit the process-fee and that no explanation was rendered for their failure to deposit the same. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No, 2, however, submits that on account of the provisions of section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, the suit filed by the Bank has to be tried by a Special Judge notified for this purpose. The learned Judge who has been so notified, sits at Lahore. A reference is made to subsection (4) of section 6 of the aforesaid Ordinance, which is reproduced below :- "(4) No Court other than a Special Court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction with respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction of a Special Court extends under this Ordinance, including a decision as to the existence or otherwise of a loan and the execution of a decree passed by a Special Court ; and all proceedings, including proceedings following the filing of an arbitration award and proceedings for the execution of a decree within the jurisdiction of a Special Court, by whatever Court passed, which may be pending in any Court immediately before the commencing day shall stand transferred to the Special Court."
' It is submitted that in view of the above provision, the suit filed by the Bank which was pending in the Court of Mr. Faiz Rubbani, Civil Judge, Vehari, stood automatically transferred to the Court of the Special Judge at Lahore. In this view of the matter, it is urged that there is no scope for consolidating the two suits.
' Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that despite the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, the two suits could still be consolidated. There is no substance in this contention. The suit filed by the Bank could only be disposed of by the Special Judge under the aforesaid Ordinance. Subsection (4) of section 6 reproduced above is very clear in this behalf.
Section 3 of the same Ordinance, to which a reference has also been made by the petitioners' learned counsel, is to the following effect :- "3. Ordinance not to derogate from other laws.-The provisions of this Ordinance shall be in addition to and, save as. Hereinafter expressly provided not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force."
According to this section, the existing laws continue to apply "save as hereinafter expressly provided". Since it is expressly provided in B section 6 that the jurisdiction of the Special Court shall be exclusive, there is no warrant for the view that the suit instituted by the Bank could be tried by a Civil Judge at Vehari. The prayer made by the petitioners in their application before the learned District Judge Fould not be allowed.
5. There is no merit in this revision petition and it is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.