The National Bank of Pakistan/respondent No.2 instituted a suit before the Banking Tribunal, Bahawalpur/respondent No.1 against both the petitioners and respondent No.3/defendants for the recovery of Rs.13,222 awarded to them as the loan facility with the mark up liability. As required under section 6(2) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, the notices were issued to the defendants to show cause within ten days of the service of notices as to why a decree as prayed for in the plaint should not be passed against them. In response to the notices, the petitioners/defendants submitted the writ reply. However, expressing that no application for permission to defend the suit was filed within the statutory period of ten days and submission of written reply was premature, the Banking Tribunal, Bahawalpur/respondent No.1 decreed the suit.
Feeling aggrieved both the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
2. I have heard the preliminary arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I asked him to address the arguments with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 according to which the remedy of preference of appeal has been provided against the judgment and decree of the Banking Tribunal and such as appeal has to be heard by a Bench of not less than two Judges of the High Court. He laid the emphasis that the petitioners were the poor persons and that as required under proviso 1 to subsection (1) of section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, they are not in a position to deposit the decretal amount which was the necessary requirement for the entertainment of the appeal. He added that the provisions of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 deviate from the procedure as laid down under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. And the said legislation only favours the Banking Companies.
In my view this writ petition is not maintainable. The efficacious and initial remedy of preference of appeal against the judgment and decree of the Banking Tribunal is provided under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. If the law requires for the deposit of the decretal amount i.e. For the fulfilment of certain conditions before the preference of the appeal, the same has to be followed strictly in letter and spirit. For the convenience of the litigant public the substantive or procedural law cannot be amended or altered which obviously is the jurisdiction of the legislature.
This Court has to follow the law. Thus if the writ petition is not maintainable in view of thenon--- observance of the formalities as mentioned above how the impugned judgment and decree can be suspended as desired and required by the petitioners. Further under subsection (2) of section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance the impugned judgment and decree can be set aside by a Bench of not less than two Judges of the High Court. In case of admission of this writ petition, the assumption of jurisdiction would be, violative of law according to which a Bench of not less than two Judges can dissect or analyse the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal, Bahawalpur/respondent No.1. Thus not only that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this writ petition, the same is also not maintainable.
3. In view of what has been said above, I express my inability to touch the merits of this writ petition on facts or law.
4. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition in limine.
Civil Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1995:
5. This application for suspension of the impugned judgment and decree has become infructuous in view of the dismissal of the writ petition in limine.
Civil Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1995:
6. This application for dispensation of the certified copies of the documents has also become infructuous in view of the dismissal of the writ petition in limine.