1. ' This Reference under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made by the District Judge, Karachi, for opinion of this Court on interpretation of section 6(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. Notices of this Reference were issued to the Advocate- General Sind and the Deputy Attorney-General, Karachi. Both Mr. Aziz Munshi, the learned Deputy Attorney-General and Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, the learned Additional Advocate-General Sind, supported the reference. The reference has been made in the following circumstances:- ' In spite of promulgation of Ordinance XIX of 1979 the suits in respect of a claim filed by the Banking Company against a borrower or by a borrower against the Banking Company in respect of or arising out of a loan where the amount did not exceed Rs.one lac were entertained by the civil Courts having jurisdiction in the matter as the jurisdiction of a 'Special Court' under the Ordinance was excluded by section 6(2)(a) of the Ordinance in respect of such cases. However, by Ordinance II of 1983 which came into effect on 30th January, 1983, the definition of 'Special Court' was amended. As a result of this amendment the Special Court created under section 2(f)(i) became entitled to exclusively try all cases in which outstanding amount of loan did not exceed Rs.one million or the trial of offences punishable under the Ordinance while all other cases under the Ordinance became cognizable by this Court which is defined as a 'Special Court' under section 2(f)
(ii) of the Ordinance for such classes of cases. It is an admitted position that a 'Special Court' has been constituted by the Federal Government under section 2 (f)(i) of the Ordinance. The learned District Judge, Karachi in a suit which was pending before him on 30-1-1983, covering a bank loan, took the view that after 30th January, 1983 the 'Special Court' constituted under section 2(f)(i) of the Ordinance has exclusive jurisdiction to try all suits involving a sum upto Rs.one million and accordingly transferred that case as well as all such cases to the Presiding Officer, 'Special Court'
2. Banking at Karachi. The Presiding Officer of Special Court however returned all those cases to District Judge, Karachi, relying on an opinion of Law Division, Government of Pakistan, that all those cases which were pending in the civil Court by virtue of section 6(2) (a) of Ordinance XIX of 1979 shall continue to be tried by those Courts in spite of deletion of section 6(2)(a) of the Ordinance.
3. The opinion of Law Division is quoted in the reference as follows:- "The cases pending in the civil Courts by virtue of section 6(2)(a) of Ordinance XIX of 1979(which has now been deleted throgh section 6 of Ordinance No.11 of 1983) are not be transferred to the special Court. The said cases shall remain pending in and shall be decided by the civil Courts by virtue of section (6)(e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The above judgment of the High Court of Sind does not in any manner alter or affect this legal position."
4. ' The District Judge, Karachi has disagreed with the view of Presiding Officer, 'Special Court' and has referred the case for opinion of this Court.
5. ' It is true that section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, provides that where a Central Act is repealed after the coming into force of General Clauses Act, 1897 then unless a different intention appears, notwithstanding such repeal, any legal proceedings pending on the date of such repeal may be continued in the same manner as if the Act or the Ordinance has not been repealed.
6. Therefore, the real question while considering the effect of a repeal on the pending proceedings is to discover the intention of the legislative in the repealing provision. With this object in view, I will examine here, in detail section 6 and other provisions of the Ordinance XIX of 1979 both as it stood before the amendment of 1983 and thereafter. The original section 6 in the Ordinance reads as follows:- "Powers of Special Court.-- (1) A Special Courtshall--
(a) in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction, have in respect of a claim filed by a banking company against a borrower or by a borrower against a banking company in respect of, or arising out of, a loan 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 jurisdiction, try the offences punishable under this Ordinance and shall, for that purpose, have the same powers as are vested in the Court of an Assistant Session Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898): ' Provided that, for the purpose of a trial before a Special Court, the provisions of Chapter XVIII of the said Code shall not apply: Provided further that a Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Ordinance except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the banking company in respect of which the offence was committed; and
(c) exercise and perform such other powers and functions as are, or may be, conferred upon, or assigned to it by or under this Ordinance.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), a Special Court shall have no civil jurisdiction in a case in which--
(a) the outstanding amount of the loan does not exceed one lac rupees;
(b) arbitration proceedings in respect of the loan are pending before arbitrator; or
(c) the loan was sanctioned under an agreement between the banking company and the borrower which provides for a dispute between the parties being referred to arbitration.
(3) All proceedings before a Special Court shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 288 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), and the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court for the purposes of sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898).
(4) No Court other than a Special Court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which the juris diction 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.
(5) In respect of proceedings transferred to a Special Court by virtue of subsection (4) the said Court shall not, by reason of the said transfer, be bound to recall and rehear any witness who has given evidence before the transfer and may act on the evidence already recorded by or produced before the Court from which the proceedings are so transferred.
7. ' ' By amendment of 1983, besides bringing other changes in section 6 (which are not relevant) clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 6 has been omitted. On a careful examination of the provisions of Ordinances XIX of 1979 and II of 1983, 1 am in no doubt that the Legislature by enacting section 6(4) of the Ordinance XIX of 1979 intended to oust jurisdiction of all other Court and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the "Special Court", in respect of all such matter which under the Ordinance became cognizable by a "Special Court" and all such proceedings pending in any Court immediately before the commencing day of Ordinance XIX of 1979 stood transferred to Special Court. However, at the time of commencement of Ordinance of 1979 under section 6(2)(a) of the Ordinance the jurisdiction of the Special Court was excluded expressly in relations to cases involving a sum of Rs.1,00,000 or less. By Amending Ordinance II of 1983, the Legislature amended the definition of a "Special Court" as aforesaid and also omitted section 6(2)(a) of the Ordinance of 1979 which had the effect of conferring jurisdiction on "Special Court" established under section 2(f)
(i) of the Ordinance in respect of those cases as well which were specially excluded from its jurisdiction under section 6(2)(a) of Ordinance XIX of 1979. As a result of this extension in the jurisdiction of "Special Court" to such cases the jurisdiction of all other Court are ousted in respect thereof as provided under section 6(4) of the Ordinance. Such cases also stood transferred as provided further in section 6(4) of the Ordinance, to the Special Court.
8. ' The District Judge was, therefore, perfectly justified in ordering transfer of all such cases to the Presiding Officer, "Special Court". The reference is decided accordingly. A copy of the order may be sent to the District Judge, Karachi for his guidance.