' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner No,1 stood surety for the supply of Sui gas to petitioners Nos.2 and 3 for Rs,1,31,000. The respondent No,2 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,2,04,889.50 against the petitioner before respondent No,
1. Respondent No,1 passed the decree against the petitioner amounting to Rs,1,02,709,50 vide judgment and decree dated 19- 12-1995. The petitioner being aggrieved filed application for rectification/modification of the judgment and decree of the respondent No,1 before him on 9-4-1996. The Banking Court dismissed the same vide order dated 23-6-1996. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application for the said relief which was also dismissed by the Banking Court vide order dated 26-9-1996, hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No,1 was erred in law to decree the suit of respondent No,2 amounting to Rs,2,04,889.50 whereas the petitioner had already paid Rs,96,021.50 thereafter, the petitioner find out balance amount from respondent No,2 who supplied statement of account to the petitioner to S.H.O. Outstanding amount against the petitioner amounting to Rs,4,440. The petitioner had also paid the said amount to the respondent No,2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that Banking Court was erred in law to decide the case against the petitioners. He further submits that Banking Court passed the decree without taking into account the amount of Rs,96,021.50 which was admittedly paid to the decree-holder. He further submits that basic decree is a violation of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court.
In support of his contention, he relied upon the case of Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd.
And others v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others (PLD 1996 Lahore 672).
3. Office sent various notices to respondent No,2 but respondent No,2 failed to enter appearance.
However, respondent No,2 engaged Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan, Advocate who had filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No,2. Name of the learned counsel of respondent No,2 is mentioned in the cause list. Despite notice no body entered appearance on behalf of respondent No,2. In this view of the matter I have no other alternative except to pass the ex parte order against respondent No,2.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record myself.
5. It is admitted fact that decree was passed by the Banking Court against the petitioner on 19-12- 1995 which is appealable under the provisions of the Banking Laws before this Court which would be heard by the two Judges of this Court. It is ^admitted fact that petitioner did not challenge the vires of the decree through an appeal under the provisions of the Banking Laws before this Court. It is also admitted fact that petitioner filed an application for modification of the judgment and decree before the Banking Court. First application on 23-4-1996 which was dismissed by the Banking Court vide order dated 23-6-1996 thereafter the petitioner filed another application which was also dismissed by the Banking Court vide order dated 26-9-1996. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had challenged the vires of the orders passed by the Banking Court on the application filed by the petitioners before the Banking Court and did not challenge the judgment and decree dated 19-12-1995 of the Banking Court. When the decree remained intact then the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. Even otherwise the Banking Court had no authority under the law to revise its own judgment and decree under the provisions of the Banking Laws and the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Messrs Conforce Limited v.
Messrs Rafique Industries Ltd. And others (PLD 1989 SC 136). It is pertinent to mention here that decree was passed by the Banking Court against the petitioner on 19-12-1995 and the Full Bench of this Court decided the matter on 11-7-1996. It is settled principle of law judgment of the superior Court has prospective effects and not retrospective effects, and past and closed transactions cannot be re-opened. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the Law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Yousuf v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore (PLD 1968 SC 101). Even otherwise the decrees passed before the said judgment are saved by the Full Bench in the aforesaid judgment relied upon the learned counsel of the petitioner. The aforesaid proposition of law was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court and saved the decrees passed by the Banking Court before the said judgment in which the aggrieved persons did not file the appeals in time under the provisions of the Banking Laws in the case of Messrs Tri Star Polyester Limited v. Citibank (2001 SCMR 410).
6. In view of what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case (PLD 1973 SC 236). Rana Muhammad Arshad's case (1998 SCMR 1468).
' However, the petitioner is well within his right to raise objection before the Executing Court under the law.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 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.