' On a suit filed by Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan, on 25-7-1985, for the recovery of Rs,10,66,951.07 against Messrs Karraz Corporation and two others my learned brother Mahhooh Ahmad, J (as he then was) decreed the suit against the appellants with future interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the realisation of the decretal amount.
2. The appellants/judgment-debtors preferred the instant appeal under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 which was admitted to regular hearing on 17-3- 1987 by the Registrar of this Court.
' On 8-7-1987 pursuant to application (C.M. No,3118/87) under Order XLI, rule 5 read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the appellants seeking stay of the execution proceedings, notice was issued to the decree-holder and status quo directed to be maintained meanwhile. 'On 26-9-1989 it transpired that no order as envisaged under section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans)
Ordinance, 1979 was passed and the case was adjourned allowing the appellants to show as to why they he not asked to file the security under section 12(5) of the aforementioned Ordinance.
Thereafter the case suffered two adjournments.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, the Registrar of this. Court is not competent to hear the appeals filed under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. As provided under subsection (4) of section 12 the appeal shall be heard by a Bench of not less than two Judges. Similarly no appeal shall be admitted to hearing unless the appellants deposit in cash with this Court the amount equivalent to the judgment-debt or at the discretion of this Court furnish security equal in value to that amount. This requirement of law is a condition precedent for admission of the appeal. In the instant case, therefore, the Registrar was not competent to admit the appeal much less without deposit in cash of the decretal amount or furnishing the security equivalent in value to such amount as required under subsection (5) of section 12 of the Ordinance. Undoubtedly, the decree was passed against the appellants on 11-11- 1986 which was challenged in appeal under section 12 of the aforementioned Ordinance on 3-1- 1987 but neither the decretal amount was deposited nor security furnished therefor presumably awaiting the order of the Court in this behalf. We accordingly admit this appeal to regular hearing and direct the appellants to furnish Bank guarantee for the decretal amount on or before 3-4-1991.
4. This appeal to come up for further proceedings on 6-4-1991.
Appeal admitted for hearing.