SYED SAEED ISHHAD, C.J.--- This transfer application under Section 24 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the applicant praying therein that Suit No. 7/1997 filed by respondent No. 2 against the applicant and respondents Nos. 3 to 5 for recovery of Rs. 79,64,375.88, which is pending adjudication in the Banking Court No. 1, Karachi be transferred to this part for proceeding alongwith Suit No. 83/1997 filed by the applicant against respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and others.
2. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Amir Hani Muslim, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Miss Masooda Siraj, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. Miss Masooda Siraj did not oppose the prayer of the applicant for transfer of Suit No. 7/1997 from Banking Court No. 1, Karachi to the banking jurisdiction of this Court.
3.. Plaints of both these suits are available on record and from perusal thereof it transpires that the disputes and the issues which require determination in the aforesaid two suits are identical and common. It is the case of respondent No. 2 that they had granted a running finance facility to respondent No. 3 to the extent of Rs.7.5 million and M/s. Zubaida Sultana and Feroze Khan Baloch, respondents Nos.4 and 5 agreed to act as guarantors for the said running finance facility and executed agreement for financing on mark up basis, Demanded Promissory Note; Letter, of Hypothecation; Letter of Pledge; and Letter of Lien as well as Irrevocable General power-of-attorney for Hypothecation of stock and trade and goodwill in favour of respondent No. 2. As further security one Malik Jahangir Khan pledge Wapda Bonds of the value of Rs.2,00,000/- and also agreed for creation lien on his CD A/C. No. 107-4 and PLS A/c. No. 1496-3 in Al-Farid Centre and CD A/c No. 2-1 and PLS A/C. No. 39-8 in Gru Mandir Branch respondent No 2. On failure of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 to repay/settle the amount of running finance facility, respondent No. 2 filed the above suit against the applicant and respondents Nos. 3 to 5 on coming to know of the filing of the aforesaid suit the applicant filed Suit No. 83 of 1997 for declaration, injunction, cancellation and damages in the banking jurisdiction of his Court. The applicant in the aforesaid suit sought declaration that the Wapda Bonds owned by him were never pledged and they are free from liens, charge and encumbrances; that the action of respondent bank in freezing the accounts of the applicant maintained in their two branches was unwarranted, illegal and without lawful authority; that the applicant had never agreed to act as guarantor on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 5; to cancel the Letter of Lien and the Letter of Pledge allegedly executed by the applicant and to hold them as null and void being forged and fabricated, creating no liability on the applicant. From the narration of the above facts it is absolutely clear that in both these suits similar and identical questions would require determination. In the suit filed by respondent No. 2 the question to be determined would be whether it had granted running finance facility to respondent No. 3, which was guaranteed and secured by respondents Nos.4 and 5 and the applicant by execution of the several document mentioned herein above. In the suit filed by the applicant the question to be determined would be whether the applicant had piedged the Wapda Bonds and has also executed the Letter of Lien as well as Letter of Pledge as claim by respondent No. 2 by way of guarantor/surety for the running finance facility granted to respondent No. 3. As identical and similar issues and questions for determination are involved in both these suits it will be appropriate and proper that both these suits should proceed in one Court so as to rule out the possibility of conflicting decisions/findings.
Trial of both these suits in one Court will also result in speedy disposal of both these suits and would save time.
4. The question which now requires to be determined is whether Suit No. 7/1997 filed by respondent No. 2 for recovery of Rs.79,64,375.88 in Banking Court No. 1, Karachi can be legally transferred and proceeded with in the banking jurisdiction of this Court in view of the provisions of Section 2(b)(i) and (ii) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1997). According to the aforesaid clauses (i) and (ii) of clause
(b) of Section 2, Banking Court has jurisdiction to proceed with cases of the value of upto Rs. 30.
Million and suits relating to recovery of amounts in excess of Rs.30 Million are to be filed in this Court. It was submitted by Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, the Advocate for respondent No. 2 that the suit filed by respondent No. 2 in Banking Court No. 1, Karachi is of the value of Rs.79,64,375.88 and that suit cannot legally be transferred and tried in the banking jurisdiction of this Court in as much as this Court in its banking jurisdiction has jurisdiction to proceed with cases involving amounts over and above Rs.30 million and all suits which involve recovery of amounts up to Rs.30 million would have to be filed before the Banking Court. He further submitted that transfer of the suit filed by respondent No. 2 from Banking Court No. 1, Karachi to this Court would be violative of the provisions of Section 2(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act of 1997 and the Courts of law would refrain from acting in a manner which would render any provision of law as nugatory and redundant. He also submitted that when a statute expresses its intention unequivocally and in clear terms for doing of something then that thing can only be done in that. Manner and in no other manner. In support of his above contention he placed reliance on the cases of (i) Reference No. 1 of 1988 made by the President of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, reported in PLD 1989 SC 75; and (ii) Syed Ali Azhar Naqvi v. The Government of Pakistan and 3 others reported in PLD 1994 Kar.
67. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui submitted that in view of the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court a suit for recovery of money up to Rs. 30 Million can only be filed and tried by a Banking Court and not by this Court.
5. Mr. Amir Hani Muslim, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently controverted the arguments advanced by Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Sidddiqui and submitted that when the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court is fixed at a higher stage/denomination then such fixation does not take away the power of such Court to proceed with case involving pecuniary jurisdiction at a lower stage/nomination. His further contention was that sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act of 1997 has fixed the jurisdiction of this Court to proceed with a suit under the Act of 1997 if the subject-matter is in excess of Rs.30 Million but that would not bar this Court from entertaining a suit wherein the subject-matter is less than Rs.30 Million notwithstanding the fact that jurisdiction to proceed with suits involving pecuniary jurisdiction to the extent of Rs. 30 million has been conferred on Banking Court. In support of his above arguments Mr. Amir Hani Muslim had drawn my attention to the cases of (i) Mst. Sajida Yousuf v. Lahore Development Authority reported in 1989 M LD 225; and (ii) Shahzada Sultan Humayun v. Nasiruddin, reported in 1984 CLC 3090: In the case of Shahzada Sultan Humayun v. Nasiruddin, supra, the brief facts are that two suits were pending between the parties in respect of the same subject-matter/property. One suit was pending in the Court of XlVth Civil Judge, Karachi while the other suit was pending in this Court. On the application for transfer of the suit pending in the Court of XlVth Civil Judge, Karachi to this Court for disposal alongwith the suit pending in this Court, this Court allowed the application and ordered transfer of suit pending in the Court of XIVth Civil Judge, Karachi to this Court for disposal alongwith suit pending in respect of the same property in this Court. In transferring the suit pending in the Court of XIVth Civil Judge, Karachi, this Court had not taken into consideration the limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the fact whether the jurisdiction of this Court was over and above the limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court so as to deprive this Court of the jurisdiction to proceed with a suit having value of the subject-matter less than the jurisdiction of this Court.
This clearly establishes the principle that when a Court is conferred pecuniary jurisdiction at a higher stage or level then it will continue to have jurisdiction to proceed with suits or matters involving subject- matter of the value less than the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction conferred on it.
6. The issue relating to the jurisdiction of this Court to proceed with a suit wherein the value of the subject-matter is less than thirty million rupees can be answered favourably on the principle that the greater including the. Less which will be applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and would sufficiently meet the objection raised by Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui regarding fixation of the minimum limit of jurisdiction of this Court at thirty million rupees and ouster of jurisdiction in respect of cases when they have of the subject-matter would be less than thirty million rupees.
Reference can be had to the case of Kadir Bux and others v. The Crown (PLD 155 FC. 79).
7. In view of the above discussion, the contention raised by Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui that this Court would have no jurisdiction to proceed with a suit involving an amount less than Rs.30 million and that the suit filed by respondent No. 2 in Banking Court No. 1, Karachi cannot be transferred and tried by this Court is without any substances and does not merit consideration. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui had also referred to me the cases of (i) Pakistan Fisheries Ltd., Karachi and others v. United Bank Ltd., reported in PLD 1993 SC 109; (ii) Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others, reported in PLD 1987 SC 447; and (i.e) Malik Gul Hasan and Co. And 5 others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan, reported in 1996 SCM R 237. After going through the aforecited authorities I am unable to visualise as to how they can be of any help to the respondents as in none of them there is any discussion or observation with regard to the question/dispute in issue in this transfer application.
8. For the foregoing reasons and discussion I am of the view that Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui has failed to established that this Court would have no jurisdiction to proceed with a suit wherein the value of subject-matter is less than the pecuniary jurisdiction conferred on this Court by sub- clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act of 1997. The contention of Mr. Amir Hani Muslim that conferment of jurisdiction at a higher stage or level on this Court by the Act of 1997 would not deprive this Court of its power to proceed with matters wherein the subject-matter is of the value less than the minimum or lower limit of this Court's jurisdiction appears to be plausible in view of the observations made by this Court in the case of Shazada Sultan Humayun v. Nasiruddin s,upra and by the Federal Court in the case of Kadir Bux and others v. The Crown (PLD 1955 FC 79).
9. Upon the above discussion I am satisfied that this Court has jurisdiction to proceed with a suit filed under the Act of 1997 wherein the subject-matter is less than Rs.30 Million. I am also satisfied that it will be proper, convenient and in the interest of justice that both the aforesaid suits should be tried by one and the same Court as parties therein are the same and the issues/disputes which require determination are also identical and similar. If the above two suits are allowed to proceed in two different Courts then the possibility of conflicting decisions/findings being given cannot be ruled out which would cause prejudice and injustice to the parties.
10. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Suit No. 7/1997 filed by respondent No. 2 and pending disposal in Banking Court No. 1, Karachi is transferred in the banking jurisdiction of this Court to be tried and disposed of alongwith Suit No. 83/1997 filed by the applicant.