' Through the institution of the present Constitutional petition, the petitioners/defendants, have called in question the order, dated 14-7-2001, whereby the learned Banking Court-IV, Lahore, while deciding the question of jurisdiction, held that the Banking Court has the jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs,25,63,570 against the petitioners, which was decreed ex parte, however, on an appeal (F.A.O. No, 56 of 2000) filed by the petitioners Company, the petitioners were allowed to file an application for leave to defend the suit. Consequent thereto the petitioners filed an application seeking leave to defend the suit before the Banking Court-IV, Lahore, inter alia, raising the question of jurisdiction. At the request of the petitioners, the learned Banking Court proceeded to decide the question of jurisdiction and after hearing both the parties, the learned Judge decided that the Banking Court has the jurisdiction to hear the suit and passed the order, dated 14-7-2001, which is the subject-matter of this Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned Banking Court has decided the question of jurisdiction in complete oblivion of the documents on record and the law on the subject inasmuch as the decision is not sustainable in law. He further argues that in view of the contents of the application, filed by the petitioners for leave to defend the suit, it is apparent that the learned Banking Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as the petitioners are neither "customers" nor "sureties" nor the "indemnifiers". In response to preadmission notice the respondent-Bank has furnished the parawise comments to which a rejoinder was filed by the petitioners.
4. The present writ petition has been directed against an order, whereby the Banking Court has decided the question of jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent-Bank, and thus assumed the jurisdiction. Admittedly the suit filed by the respondent-Bank as well as an application filed by the petitioners for leave to defend the suit are pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. During the pendency of the suit/application for leave to defend the suit, the impugned order which for all intents and purposes is an interlocutory order, was passed by the learned Banking Court. It is not the case of the petitioners that the impugned interlocutory order is either arbitrary or passed in excess of jurisdiction. It is settled law that interlocutory orders are not amenable to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and the writ petition is not entertainable against the interlocutory orders passed by the Courts. The following case-law will amply support the above proposition of law. Bashir Ahmad v. Province of Punjab and others (1988 CLC 1965), Malik Abbas Raza v. Government of Balochistan and 3 others PLD 1968 Lah. 163, Ghulam Hussain and another v. Malik Shabaz Khan and another 1995 SCMR 1925, Muhammad Siddique Qazi v.
Muhammad Ibrahim Khokhar and another 1987 M LD 265 and Ghulam Muhammad and others v.
Munir Ahmad Shah and others 1994 CLC 14.
5. Admittedly the suit/application for leave to defend the suit are pending before the learned Banking Court and it has still to render its final verdict about the fate of the suit/aforenoted application. There is no cavil with the proposition that if the suit would be ultimately decreed by the Banking Court against the petitioners, they would have a right of appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, wherein all the questions/grounds raised by the petitioners in the writ petition would be available to them before the appellate forum.
The impugned order would, obviously merge into final order/judgment, if the same would be passed against the petitioners.
6.Another aspect of the case is that alongwith parawise comments. The respondent-Bank has produced photocopies of certain documents including agreement of Finance. Promissory Note and the Guarantees. This Court on 1-11-2001, after hearing arguments, directed the petitioners to file the rejoinder specifically taking the plea about the execution of the documents attached with the parawise comments as R.1 to R.9. In response thereto the petitioners have filed the rejoinder wherein it has been stated that the respondent-Bank has forged the documents, same are fabricated and were never executed by the petitioners. Be that as it may, the petitioners have raised the factual controversies about the execution of documents, which exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. Moreover, if any findings on the execution of the said documents are given in the present writ petition, it would definitely prejudice the case of either of the parties, as the suit/application for leave to defend the suit, are still pending adjudication and yet to be decided by the learned Banking Court in view of the pleadings of the parties, documents on record and, of course, according to law. It is settled law that this Court can, in exercise of its jurisdiction vested in it under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, neither enter into factual controversies nor decide disputed questions of facts.
Reliance is placed on Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Forest and Agricultural, Peshawar and others 1993 SCM R 618. Umar Hayat Khan v.
Inayatullah Butt and others 1994 SCM R 572, Muhammad Ali and another v. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 2 others 1986 CLC 1123, Mst. Kaniz Fatima through Legal Heirs v.
Muhammad Salim and 27 others 2001 SCM R 1493 and Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Divisional Forest Officer v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others PLD 2001 SC 415.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition is incompetent and not maintainable, thus the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.