CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that respondent bank filed a suit against the petitioners before the Banking Tribunal under the provisions of Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 for the recovery of Rs. 11,180,742/- alongwith liquidated damages @ 20%.
The Banking Tribunal issued show-cause notice to the petitioners under the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance. Since the reply filed by the petitioners was found to be time-barred the learned Tribunal proceeded to decree the suit of the Bank vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.1995. The petitioners filed the following three applications, before the Banking Tribunal:--
(1) Application under Section 6(5) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance;
(2) Application under Order 27-A, Rule 1 read with Section 151, CPC; and
(3) Application under Section 12(2), CPC.
The Banking Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid applications by one consolidated order dated 13.10.1998. The petitioners being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Banking Tribunal was constituted by the Federal Government under the provisions of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He relied upon Item No. 28 of the 4th Schedule of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
He submits that Federal Government has only power to frame the law with regard to the matters mentioned in the said item qua the corporations and banks controlled by the Federation. The Punjab Bank is Provincial Corporation, which was constituted under the name and style of Bank of Punjab, 1989, therefore Banking Tribunal has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter, that this question of law was not adverted to by the learned Banking Tribunal, In support of his contention he relied upon Imran Vs. Presiding Officer, Punjab Special Court No. VI, Multan and 2 others (PLD 1996 Lahore 542). He further urges that petitioners challenged the vires of the Ordinance before the Tribunal, therefore, the learned Tribunal had erred in law by not issuing notice to the Attorney General of Pakistan and the Advocate General of Punjab under Order 27-A, Rule 1, CPC, therefore, the impugned order is not sustained in the eyes of law: In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments: Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others Vs. Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao and others (PLD 1992 S.C. 723), and Federal Public Service Commission and others Vs. Syed Muhammad Afaq and others (PLD 2002 S.C. 167) = (2002 PSCC 177). He further submits that Banking Tribunal has erred in law to decree the suit against the petitioners and found the reply of the petitioners as time-barred is not valid in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he relied upon Messrs Indus Match Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank Ltd. And another (1996 CLC 1378).
3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioners have alternate remedy to file appeal before the Court, which wold have been heard by the Division Bench of this Court. He further urges that decree passed by the learned Banking Tribunal dated 23.5.1996 had attained finality in view of Section 10 of the Ordinance. The learned counsel for the petitioners in rebuttal submits that the impugned order and decree are without lawful authority, therefore, writ petition is maintainable.
4. When the learned counsel for the petitioners was asked whether the petitioners had taken the point of jurisdiction in the reply submitted by them before the Banking Tribunal, in reply to show- cause notice, he submits that perhaps petitioners have taken the said stand in the reply.
5. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable on facts and law as the provisions of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act XV of 1975, was the subject-matter in that case. Whereas provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 and provisions of Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984) were considered by the-Full Bench of this Court in Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. And others Vs. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others (PLD 1996 Lahore 672). The judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunals before the judgments of the Full Bench were saved on the well-known principle of past and closed transaction, it is pertinent to mention here that decree was passed on 23.5.1995 whereas the Full Bench of this Court decided the questions of law on 11.7.1996 in Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. Case (PLD 1996 Lahore 672) (supra).
7. The petitioners had alternative remedy to file appeal before the Court under Section 9 of the aforesaid Ordinance which admittedly was not filed. Coupled with the fact the petitioners did not attach reply of the show-cause notice alongwith this writ petition. This fact brings the case of the petitioners in the area that the petitioners did not approach this Court with clean hands, It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Petitioners have concealed the material facts from this Court, therefore, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioners as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the following judgments: Abdur Rashid Vs. Pakistan and others (1969 SCMR 141), Messrs Grain Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. And 10 others Vs. Agricultural Development Bank (1993 SCMR 1996), Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali, etc. Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 S.C. 236), and Rana Muhammad Arshad Vs. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division and others (1998 SCMR 1462). It appears that the petitioners filed aforesaid applications before the Banking Tribunal so that the decree passed in favour of the respondent-bank be frustrated, which otherwise had attained finality under the law.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.