' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 15-10-1996 the respondent filed a suit against Fazal Ahmad, predecessor-ininterest of the present appellants, for recovery of sum of Rs.6,84,468. This suit was filed before a Chairman Banking Tribunal-I, Faisalabad. The said Fazal Ahmad put in appearance and filed an application for leave to defend the suit. The application was contested by the respondent-Bank. The Chairman Banking Tribunal heard the parties and proceeded to pass a decree in the sum of Rs.6,81,907. This included a sum of Rs.1,14,081 as liquidated damages. This decree was passed on 15-10-1996.
2. We find that the impugned decree has been passed by the Chairman Banking Tribunal on 15-10- 1996 i.e. At a point of time when judgment in the case of Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd.
And others .v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others PLD 1996 Lahore.672 had already been rendered by a learned Full Bench of this Court on 21-7-1996. Vide the said judgment section 4, section 6(6), as it stood, .After amendment by Act VII of 1990 and first proviso to section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 were declared unconstitutional. Further the notifications appointing the Presiding Officers of the Banking Tribunals issued under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984, were declared without lawful authority and were quashed.
3. The effect of the said judgment is that on 15-10-1996 the Chairman Banking Tribunal-I, Faisalabad was not possessed of the jurisdiction or lawful authority to pass the impugned decree, notification of his appointment having been quashed by this Court. As a corollary, Honourable Judges further directed that the cases pending before the Banking Tribunals, shall stand transferred to the respective Banking Courts. It was clarified that in cases where the value of the suit is more than Rs.10 millions, the files be transmitted to the High Court and in cases where the value is less than Rs.10 millions, the files will be sent to the Banking Court of the respective Districts.
The value of the suit being less than Rs.10 millions, the file of the case was liable to be transferred to the Banking Court of Faisalabad District.
4. When confronted with the said judgment, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has not much to say. Needless to state that the decree having been passed after pronouncement of the said judgment, it is not covered by saving clause 12 of the same. We, therefore, allow this R.F.A. And remand back the case to the learned Judge, Banking Court at Faisalabad. The parties shall put in appearance before the said Court on 24-7-2003. The records of the case be also immediately remitted to the said learned Court for further proceedings in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
' A copy of this judgment be also remitted to the learned Banking Court, Faisalabad.