ORDER MUHAMMAD ilyas, J.- This petition has been made by the Allied Bank of Pakistan seeking leave to appeal against order dated the 24th January, 1994 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 17th October, 1993 made by the Special Judge, Banking Court, Lahore.
2. The petitioner had filed a suit before learned Special Judge against the respondent, Shabhir Ahmad for recovery of Rs. 77,912/- with interest. The said amount had been advanced to the respondent by the petitioner as a loan on the security of golden ornaments and two life insurance policies. Golden ornaments had, in fact, been sold, during the pendency of the suit, for Rs. 38,000/- and the sale proceeds had been credited to the said loan. The suit was ultimately decreed, the petitioner then made an execution application for recovery of Rs. 1,09,073.60 by including the interest claimed by the petitioner.
3. During execution proceedings, the respondent made an application praying that the petitioner be directed to sell out the golden ornaments equal to the decretal amount and then release the remaining golden ornaments together with Uit -wo life insurance policies lying with the petitioner.
He did not disclose that the above ornaments had already been sold as aforesaid.
4. The learned Special Judge without notice to the petitioner appointed a local commissioner to sell the ornaments is question.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Special Judge with regard to the appointment of the local commissioner, the petitioner made an application to the learned Special Judge for review of the said order. The review application was, however, dismissed by the learned Special Judge on the ground that it was time-barred. According to the petitioner, however, the application was within time.
6. Order of the learned Special Judge dismissing review application was challenged by the petitioner by filing the said appeal before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed by the learned Division Bench holding that the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to review his order.
7. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that according to clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, learned Special Judge had all the powers of a civil Court, including that of review, and as such the view taken by the High Court was erroneous. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) ibid reads as follcw's:- "(a) in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction, have in respect of a claim filed by a banking company against a borrower 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)".
The learned Division Bench had relied upon Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. Vs. United Bunk Lid. (PLD 1993 SC 109) to support its verdict. With regard to this precedent case, it was submitted by the learned counsel that it had no bearing on the point in question inasmuch as the case under report related to an application for revision and not to an application for review.
8. Sub-section (3) of section 8 of the said Ordinance deals with the execution of decrees passed by a Special Court and reads as follows "(3) The Special Court shall, on the application of the decree-holder forthwith order execution of the decree as arrears of land revenue or such other manner as it may deem fit".
9. The Ordinance does not contain any specific provision allowing or barring a review application at the stage of trial or that of execution. According to sub-section (1) of section 12 of the said Ordinance, any order of a Special Court can be challenged before the High Court by means of an appeal but such appeal is not competent against an interlocutory order which does not dispose of the entire case before the Special Court.
10. The question whether clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 6 which confers all the powers of a Civil Court, can be pressed into service for allowing the Special Court to review an interim order passed b 1 it during execution proceedings needs consideration. Learned counsel submits that in no precedent case, the said question has been decided either way. We, therefore, grant leave to the petitioner to appeal against the above order of the learned Division Bench so that the said question may be thoroughly examined and then determined not only for the purpose of the present case but also for future guidance. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.