' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.---By this single judgment we propose to dispose of F.A.O. No,3/93 (Qayyum Nawaz etc. v. Regional Manager. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, D.I. Khan etc.) and F.A.O. No,4/93 (Regional Manager. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. D.I. Khan etc. v. Qayyum Nawaz, etc.) as both these appeals have been filed in consequence of one and the same impugned order dated 11-7-1993, passed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, D.I. Khan.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the present litigation between the parties started when a legal notice No,3 C/92/6277, dated 1-12-1992, for payment of allegedly outstanding amount of Rs,12.54,933 was issued by Mr. Samiullah Jan, Advocate, Legal Advisor of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan in the name of Qayyum Nawaz Khan and Mst. Shah Jehan Begum, appellants of F.A.O. No,3/93 (hereinafter called as the appellants), stating therein that despite the intimations made to them from time to time by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (hereinafter called as the respondents), for payment of its overdues, they had failed/neglected to pay the said overdues. It was stated in the notice that the respondents had already shown to them their utmost indulgence and forbearance and extended ample opportunity to them so that they should liquidate the said over dues. A period of 30 days was given for payment of over dues and in case of their failure the respondents should be free to institute recovery suit against them before the proper forum.
3. After the receipt of the legal notice the appellant instituted a declaratory suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, D.I. Khan on 13-1-1993, which was entrusted to Civil Judge, 1st Class, D.I. Khan for disposal, to the effect that there was no amount outstanding against the appellants recoverable by the respondents and the notice issued on behalf of the respondents was factually and legally incorrect and ineffective. In the plaint it was also stated that the appellants were entitled to the recovery of damages for defamation and cost for compensation of mental torture and agony at least to the extent of Rs,40,00,000 (forty lacs) i,e, Rs,20,00,000 (twenty lacs) per appellant. It was stated that the respondents had conveniently failed to take notice of the National calamity orders of the Government. On the basis of Notification No,3185/Relief-A-28, dated 24-7-1991 issued by the Provincial Government, the learned Collector/Deputy Commissioner, D.I. Khan vide his Order No,577-571/DRA dated 2-8-1992 suspended the recovery of Government dues of 83 villages till 30th June, 1993, including the village of the appellants. On the basis of another Notification of the Provincial Government hearing No,9997/FLD/Relief/81/92, dated 2-12-1992, the learned Collector/Deputy Commissioner, D.I. Khan suspended the recovery of all amounts of Government defeat standing in whole district of D.I. Khan for a period of one year i,e, up to 15-12-1993. Along with the plaint an application for stay was also filed that till the decision of the suit the respondents be restrained from the recovery of the alleged outstanding amounts mentioned in the notice dated 1- 12-1992.
4. On 13-1-1993 the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, D.I. Khan passed a stay order directing the respondents not to recover the amount mentioned in the notice from the appellants and the respondents were also summoned for 22-2-1993. The suit and the application were contested by the respondents by submitting their written statements. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge returned the plaint to the appellants under Order 7, rule 10, C.P.C. For presentation before the proper forum on the ground that he had no jurisdiction besides the matter had arisen out of the loan in-between the Bank and the borrowers and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted and Special Court has been constituted under section 5 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 and empowered under section 5 of the Ordinance ibid to deal with such like matters. With regard to the other relief i,e, compensation for defamation, the suit was entertained by the learned trial Court on the ground that the Civil. Court had got the jurisdiction and the appellants were directed to amend their plaint to that extent. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the learned Trial Court both the parties have come up to this Court with the appeals in hand. The appellants of F.A.O. No,3/93 have challenged the impugned order on the ground that their-plaint should have been entertained by the learned Trial Court in toto and the appellants could not be forced to amend their plaint. The appellants of F.A.O. No,4/93 are also not satisfied from the impugned order and filed this appeal for modifying the order of the learned trial Court to the extent that the plaint of the respondents be returned to them for presentation before the proper forum.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the appeals and minutely gone through the material available on the record with their assistance.
7. So far as F.A.O. No,3/93 is concerned, the learned Trial Court on the one hand came to the conclusion that he has got no jurisdiction and returned the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. For presentation before the proper forum, but at the same time allowed the appellants to amend their plaint. The dispute between the parties relates to the recovery of Advance by the ADBP and the Banking Tribunal constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, has the exclusive jurisdiction, therefore, the learned Trial Court was right in returning the plaint to the appellants under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. For presentation before the proper forum. Consequently F.A.O. No,3/93 is dismissed.
8. As far as F.A.O. No,4/93 is concerned, the Trial Court has also no jurisdiction to entertain the suit with regard to damages which is an off-shoot of the main suit for declaration and which has been returned to the respondents for presentation before the proper forum. Resultantly F.A.O. No,4/93 is accepted, the impugned order dated 11-7-1993 with regard to the finding of the Trial Court that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction in respect of the relief for compensation for defamation etc. And permission for the consequential amendment in the plaint, is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to return the plaint in toto to the respondents for presentation before the proper forum.
However, the parties are directed to burden their own costs.