' Through the filing of this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question order dated 5-7-1999, whereby the learned Judge, Banking Court No,IV, Lahore, dismissed an application, filed by the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. With a prayer that the same may be declared as illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction.
2. Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Limited, the predecessor Bank of respondent No,1, filed a suit for recovery of Rs,78,02,819.34 against respondents Nos.2 to 6 and the petitioner which was decreed by the Banking Court vide judgment and decree dated 25-3-1998. Pursuant to the above, an execution application was filed, wherein the property bearing No,99, Shah Jamal, Lahore, statedly belonging to the petitioner, was attached under the orders of the Court and the Court-auctioneer was appointed for auctioning the property. The petitioner moved an application under section 18(6) of the Act XV of 1997 read with section 47 and Order XXI, rule 58, C.P.C. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application under section 12(2) , C . P. C. Challenging the decree dated 25- 3-1998 on the ground of having been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, but the said application was dismissed by the learned Banking Judge vide order dated 5-7-1999, hence, the present writ petition.
3. Despite the service of notices through registered postal card, none has entered appearance today on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 6, hence, they are proceeded ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the writ petition has contended that under the facts and circumstances of the case an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was the only remedy available to the petitioner and by dismissing the said application in a summary fashion by the learned Judge, Banking Court, the petitioner has been non-suited as such the impugned order is not maintainable in law.
5. The foremost question which has arisen for determination is as to whether the provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. Are applicable to the proceedings before the Banking Court and that the present writ petition, wherein an order for dismissing an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Has been challenged, is maintainable. This question was considered in number of judgments and it was held that section 12(2), C.P.C. Has no applicability to the proceedings arising out of Act XV of 1997. In view of the law declared on the subject in cases reported as Emirates Bank International Limited v. Messrs Usman Brothers and others PLD 1998 Kar. 338; United Bank Limited v. Messrs Zafar Textile Mills Limited 2000 CLC 1330 and Life Paper Store and others v. Bank of Punjab and others 2001 YLR 77 I am constrained to hold that the provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. Are not attracted in the proceedings arising out of Act XV of 1997, thus, the application filed by the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was misconceived, incompetent and has rightly been dismissed by the learned Judge, Banking Court, as such the writ petition is not competent.
6. In view of the above cases-law, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 5-7- 1999 which is just, legal, proper and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
7. In view of the above discussions and reasons, the writ petition is incompetent and not maintainable, thus the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.