' In the present case respondent No,2, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, filed a suit for recovery of money against the petitioner and respondent No,3, which was decreed by the Banking Tribunal on 23-11-1992. The common ground between the parties is that this judgment was not appealed against nor challenged till the year 1993 when the petitioner filed a writ petition which came up for hearing alongwith a number of cases before the Full Bench of this Court, which vide judgment dated 21-7-1996 `M/s. Henab Cement Products v. Banking Tribunal' PLD 1996 Lah. 672 accepted the Constitutional petition and declared certain provisions of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 as also the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 as unconstitutional. However, while disposing of the aforesaid petition the Full Bench with a view to avoid any confusion observed in para. 12 of the judgment that the declaration made by the Court would not affect the judgments, decrees, orders, fines, sentences or proceedings which have become final. The respondents applied for execution of the decree during the course of which the petitioner raised an objection that the decree stands set aside by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,1187 of 1993. This contention was repelled vide the impugned order dated 23-11-1992 of the Banking Tribunal. This order has been challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.
2. Mr. Fazal-i-Miran Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the subsequent judgment of this Court in E.F.A. No,113 of 1998, has contended that as the appointment of the Presiding Officer who passed the decree was held to be un-Constitutional, the decree was void and was incapable of being acted upon.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, drawn attention of this Court to the case reported as Soneri Bank Limited through Mian Abdul Wajid, E.V.P. And Muhammad Ashfaq Chishti, V.P. v. Raja Weaving Mills Limited and another (KLR 1997 Civil Cases 742) in which the learned Supreme Court denied relief to the petitioner who had challenged the decree passed against him. While referring to para.12 of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Chenab Cement Products (supra) it was held that the decree and judgment passed in favour of the appellant on 6th of January, 1996, was not affected by the Full Bench judgment.
' In view of the above, this petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.