JUDGMENT AJMAL MIAN, ACJ.- This is an appeal with the leave of Dus Court against the judgment dated 23.9.1996 passed by a Division Bench in Writ Petition Xo. 11387 of 1996 filed byphe respondent disposing of the same in terms of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No 6686 of 1996.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 86.14.247.84 (rupees eighty sis iac fourteen thousand two hundred forty seven and paisas thirty four) before the Banking Tribunal'll. Lahore under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance. 1984 hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. While the above suit was pending^ the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 28.92.316/ (rupees twenty eight lac ninty two thousand three hundred and sixteen). The matter proceeded before the Tribunal. A decree in favour of the appellant was passed on 16.1.1996 for a sum of Rs.'41,36,007.49 (rupees forty one lac thirty six thousand and seven and paisas forty nine). It appears that against the above judgment and decree the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 3610 of 1996 in the month of February. 1996. The above writ petition was withdrawn on 3.3.1996 by the respondent by making statement before the Court that the respondent wish to file an appeal provided under the relevant law. It appears that instead of filing an appeal as was stated therefore the Court in the above writ petition, the respondent filed Writ Petition Xo. 11387 of 1996 in the month of June, 1996. It appears that a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court on 21st of July. 1996 declared certain provisions inter alia of the Ordinance as ultra vires. The above second writ petition had come up for hearing before a Division Bench on 23.9.1996 which was disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Writ Petition Xo. 6686 of 1996. In the latter writ petition the above Full Bench judgment was followed. No separate reasons were recorded. The appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal which was granted in view of the fact that in a number of cases involving the vires of the Ordinance leave was already granted.
3. In support of the above appeal, Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant has raised two contentions:- That the learned Judges of the Division Bench passed the above judgment in Writ Petition No. 11387 of 1S96 on 23.9.1996 without serving any notice on the appellant.
(ii I That in any case since the judgment/decree was passed in favour of the appellant on 16.1.1996.
The above judgment/decree was not affected by the above Full Court judgment dated 21.7.1996 in view of para l2 of the Full Bench judgment which reads as follows:- Before parting with the case we may' also state that the declarations made by us in this judgment shall not affect cases past and closed or invalidate the judgments/decrees, orders, fines or sentences or proceedings which have become final As a result of this judgment no vacuum will be created as these cases are also triable by the Courts created under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans* Ordinance. 1979, which can also try cases under the Islamic System of v Banking after the amendment of the definition of loan by the I amending Ordinance No. 58 of 1980 .
4. Khawaja Haris Ahmad. Advocate Supreme Court who is holding brief on behalf of Mr. Hamid Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court, states that he cannot make any statement as to the correctness of the above first submission but as regards the above second legal submission, he has candidly conceded that this is so provided in the above quoted para l2 of the judgment.
5. We. Therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the above judgment of the Division Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 11387 of 1996 with no order as to costs.
THE END [*]2. Relevant facts leading to filing of C.A247/93 briefly mentioned are that Office Management Group wras created by the Estsablishment Division on 27.1.1975 vide Office Memorandum No. 1/2/75-ARC to ensure smooth function in Federal Secretariat. The occupational group so constituted composed of following category of staff:-