JUDGMENT MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.- Through the filing of the present cross-objections, which were registered as appeal, the present appellants have called in question judgment and decree dated22.1.1994, whereby the then learned Banking Tribunal passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.2,26,13,814/94 as against respondent No. 1 and the appellants, while the suit against respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and one Zahid Sohail was dismissed.
2. The facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, are that initially Habib Bank Limited (subsequently, Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Limited was substituted as plaintiff in place of Habib Bank Limited) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.22.773 Million, together with 20% liquidated damages, against the appellants, respondents Nos. 1, 3 to 5 and one Mst. Zahida Sohail before the learned Banking Tribunal, who issued show-cause notices to the defendants and pursuant thereto respondents Nos. 1, 3 to 5, the appellants and one Mst. Zahida Sohail filed separate replies to the snow -cause notices. The learned Banking Tribunal, after hearing' the arguments, passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.2,26,13,814/94 as against respondent No. 1 and the appellants, while the suit against respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and Mst. Zahida Sohail was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.1.1994. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent bank filed an Appeal (RFA No. 47/1994) with the prayer that decree dated 22.1.1994, may be amended and the decree be passed against all the defendants jointly and severally.
In response to the said appeal, the present appellants, on 16.3.1994, filed the present cross- objections to decree dated 22.1.1994, with the prayer that the afore-noted decree against the appellants be set aside and a decree be passed against respondents Nos. 3 to 5, which were subsequently registered as present appeal (RFA No. 209/1994).
3. As regards the appeal filed by the respondent bank (RFA No. 47/1994), the same was withdrawn by the bank, on 23.5.2002, on the ground that the decree has been stood satisfied therefore, now the only appeal remains to be decided is the cross- objections, filed by the appellant.
4. The learned counsel for-the appellants has contended that the learned Banking Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and decree against the appellants in complete oblivion of the facts of the case, as a matter of act, the appellants were not liable to pay the decretal amount and, the decree ought to have been passed only against respondents Nos. 3 to 5, who were the real beneficiaries of the finance. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the decree has rightly been passed. He has further raised an objection that the cross-objections, filed by the appellants, which have been converted into the present appeal, are not maintainable.
5. In order to determine the maintainability of the present appeal, we have examined the record of the case and law on the subject. Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, inter alia, provides that any person aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned Banking Tribunal may file an appeal to this Court within 30 days of such order and that the said appeal shall not be entertained unless the defendants has deposited with the Banking Tribunal, the amount claimed in the suit. Section 10 of the second Ordinance, 1984, prescribes that subject to the provisions of appeal under Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, no Court or other authority shall call or permit to be called m question any judgment or decree passed by the Banking Tribunal.
Itflows therefrom that the scheme of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1 984, is that any judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal has to be assailed only through the filing of an appeal, which took would be entertained after the deposit of the decretal amount and that said judgment and decree shall not be ' called in question through any other mode/manner, except by way of appeal. Furthermore it is settled law that the right of appeal is the creation of statute and to be exercised according to the provision of that particular statute. Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, was a special law and there cannot be any cavil to the proposition that a special law over-rides the general law, thus, the provisions of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, override the provisions of CPC. Additionally, the periods of limitation for filing the first appeal before this Court, provided in a special law and general law, are different as tn the case of decree passed by the Banking Tribunal, an appeal is to be filed within 30 days, while under the ordinary law, the first appeal lies to this Court within a period of 90 days. Upon the perusal of the provisions of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, we find that the provisions of Section 96, CPC have not been made applicable to the provisions of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. If the appellants were aggrieved from any order, judgment or decree passed by the Banking Tribunal, they could have assailed the same through the filing of an appeal under Section 9 of the said Ordinance, 1984 and that too after fulfilling the requirements, enunciated in the said Section, necessary before entertaining the appeal. The appellants were able to challenge the judgment and decree, thereby bypassing the provisions of Section 9, ibid, and its requirements. As the appellants failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and failed to file the appeal, therefore, we are of the view that the cross-objections, filed by the said appellants, which were converted into this appeal, were not entertainable.
6. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that in the present case, the cross-objections are not entertainable, thus, the present appeal, which is conversion of the cross- objections, is also not maintainable and mis-conceived.
7. In view of the above reasons, we are constrained to hold that the present appeal is incompetent, thus, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.