MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought from orders dated 13.4.2000 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissing petitioners' FAOs Nos. 261 and 262 of 1999 challenging the vires of interim/interlocutory orders passed by Banking Court No. II, Lahore refusing to allow their prayers for stay of auction proceedings of their properties in relation to realization of decretal amounts by respondent No. 1-caveator/Prime Commercial Bank Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Bank.
2. A brief resume of the facts leading to the present petitions under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is that couple of suits of respondent No. l/the Bank brought against the petitioners and other respondents were decreed by the-then Banking Tribunal, Lahore. Appeals against the judgments and decrees of the Banking Court, are pending decision before the Lahore High Court, Lahore wherein the operation of the decrees was suspended with the result that auction of the properties of the petitioners (and other respondents) was stayed provided respondents Nos. 3 to 6 invest the decretal amounts in saving schemes but those orders were never complied -with. The said interim orders were further challenged before this Court but the same were resolved against the defendants in the earlier suits.
3. The petitioners filed two suits before the Banking Court No. T1, Lahore Bearing No. 462 of 1998 and 463 of 1998 inter alia, for declaration, cancellation of documents as also permanent and mandatory injunctions with consequential reliefs but the plaints were rejected by Banking Court No.11, Lahore under Rule II of Order VII, CPC on 22.1.1999. Petitioners tiled FAOs No. 167 and (168) of 1999 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which were allowed and the to the learned Judge Banking Court No. II for decision of the suits afresh in accordance with law and on merits.
Facts leading to the present petitions:-
4. The petitioners filed separate applications under Section 151, CPC seeking orders restraining the Bank from auctioning Properties Nos. 54 and 55 Abu Bakar Block, New Garden Town, Lahore till the final decision of the suits. On the .Bank resisting the said applications, the learned Judge Banking Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the same vide orders dated 17.9.1999 (in Suit No. 463 of 1998) as below:- "It is an admitted fact that suit of respondent No. 1 was decreed against the petitioners and rest of the respondents this Court while dis-agreeing with the plea so raised by the petitioners that they never executed the documents for the loan facility so granted to respondents Nos. 3 to 6. -Appeal against the judgment and decree of this Court is pending in the Honourable Lahore High, Court, Lahore wherein operation of the decree. On the basis of which property of the petitioners is being auctioned was ordered to he stayed provided respondents Nos. 3 to 6 shall invest the decretal amount in saving scheme which order was never complied with. Appeal preferred against the said order also stands dismissed by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan.
" Under these circumstances I am of the considered opinion that there is no legal justification for stay of auction of property for the purpose of realization of the decretal amount by respondent No.
1. Even otherwise petitioners would not suffer any irreparable loss, Balance of convenience is also not in their favour, petition is, therefore, dismissed being without merits."
5. The petitioners challenged orders dated 17.9.1999 of Banking Court No. II, Lahore through FAOs Nos. 261 and 262 of 1999 under Section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (No. XV of) 1997, hereinafter referred to as the Act, but the same were dismissed as not maintainable by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore through the impugned orders, one of which reads thus:-- " Order challenged in this appeal under Section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 is interim and interlocutory in nature inasmuch as by the impugned order the application tiled by the appellants for stay of auction of the property was dismissed. According to Section 21(5) of the Act, 1997, no appeal lies against an interlocutory order passed by Banking Court under Section 18(6) of the Act. Consequently this appeal is not competent. In this connection reference may he made to Bolan Bank Limited Vs. Capricorn Enterprises, (Pvt.) Ltd. (1998 SCM R 1961),
2. Dismissed as being not maintainable."
6. Mr. Mian Nisar Ahmed, learned ASC appearing On behalf of the petitioners, has contended that as the learned Judge, Banking Court had finally disposed of petitioners' applications under Section 151, CPC therefore they could tile appeals under Section 21(1) of the Act and that the decision to the contrary cannot he .Sustained. He has relied upon Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others Vs. Muhammad Zaman Khan and others (1997 SCM R 1508), Habib Bank Limited and others VS. Syed Zia-ul-Hasan Kazmi (1998 SCM R 60) and United Bank and others Vs. Ahsan Akhtar and others (1998 SCM R 68) to contend that his clients appeals under Section 21(5) of the Act were maintainable.
7. , Dr. Parvez Hassan, learned ASC appearing on behalf of the Bank/Caveator, has supported the impugned order with the assertion that the learned Members of the Division Bench of the High Court were quite right in observing that according to Section 21(5) of the Act, no appeal lies against interlocutory orders passed by the Banking Courts under Section 18(6) of the Act as ruled by this Court in Bolan Bank Limited (supra).
8. We have considered the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioners and the Bank and are not inclined to the view that the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of any help to them. The specific question in relation to maintainability or otherwise of appeal under Section 21 ibid, was resolved by this Court in Bolan Bank Limited (supra) as below:- "3. The competency of this petition has also been challenged by Mr. Mansoorul Arlin on another valid ground. It has been pointed out that under Section 21 of Act XV of 1997, clause (5), no appeal, review or revision shall lie against any interlocutory order of the Banking Court other than an order passed under sub-section (6) of Section 18. The order impugned in the present petition does not fall within the purview of an order passed under sub-section (6) of Section 18. Therefore, Section 21 clearly bars an appeal against an interlocutory order which does not dispose of the whole case.
The learned counsel has, therefore, questioned the maintainability of the petition before this Court as it has been field against an interlocutory order. Reference once again may he made to the said unreported judgment of this Court to which we have already referred. With reference to a similar contention raised by the learned counsel in the said case, it was observed:-- "The stand taken by the learned counsel is untenable for more than one reason. The Legislature has not provided any right of appeal against an interlocutory order of the Special Court. It is not understandable as to how the instant appeal is competent."
"Reference has also been made by Mr, Mansoorul Arlin to the following observations made in another judgment of this Court in' Muhammad Ayub Butt v. Allied Bank Ltd. (PLD 1981 SC 359):-- "It seems to us that with a -view to securing expeditious disposal of cases by a Special Court the framers of the Ordinance had purposely saved the interlocutory orders of the said Court from attack before the High Court in revision or appeal as they wanted that only the final decisions of the Special Court should he open to appeal before the High Court. This is evident from sub-section
(1) of Section 7, sub-section (1) of Section 8 and Section 11 of the Ordinance. The cumulative effect of these provisions is that the interlocutory order of the Special Court cannot he questioned before any Court including the High Court."
"4. The two judgments referred to by us do not leave any room for doubt that the petition tiled by the petitioners in the present case is not competent. In fact, when Mr. G.H. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted with the said situation, he could only argue that in an earlier case in spite of similar objections, partial relief was granted to the petitioners. It is pertinent to point out that although, Mr. Mansoorul Arfin, who had also appeared as a counsel for the respondents in that case, did not contradict Mr. G.H. Malik in this regard but it was explained by the learned counsel that in the said case the order was passed more or less by consent. In this case the possibility of a consent order was ruled out by the counsel themselves."
9. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioners that they had complied with the conditions imposed by Lahore High Court, Lahore by directing respondents Nos. 3 to 6 to invest the decretal amount in Saving Schemes, in this view of the Matter, no ground for interfering with the impugned orders dated 13.4.2000 passed by the High Court in FAOs Nos. 261 and 262 of 1999 on the strength of Bolan Bank Limited (supra) has been made out.
10. Resultantly, these petitions lack merit and - are liable to be dismissed. So he it.