' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order, dated 4-12-2000 passed by learned Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court in Transfer Application No, 17 of 2000 wherby learned High Court transferred Suit No,7 of 1997 filed by the petitioner-Bank against respondents Nos.2 to 5 for recovery of Rs,79,64,375 of 1988 from Banking Court No,1, Karachi to the Sindh High Court for proceeding alongwith Suit No,83 of 1997 filed by Malik Jehangir Khan respondent No,1 against the petitioner-Bank, respondents Nos.3 to 5 and others, for declaration, injunction, cancellation of documents anddamages in the sum of Rs,20 million for loss of reputation and Rs,5,00,000 per month from December, 1996 till the delivery of WAPDA Bonds pledged with the petitioner-Bank.
2. Briefly stated the facts appear to be that the petitioner-Bank, at the request of respondent No,3, Messrs Quality Garments, a Partnership Firm, through respondents Nos.4 and 5, Mst. Zubaida Sultana and Feroze Khan Baluch, advanced running finance "facility in the sum of Rs,7.5 million to the said respondents who executed various agreements and documents by way of security.
Respondent No,2, Malik Jehangir Khan by way of additional security for repayment of the finance facility pledged his WAPDA Bonds worth Rs,2,00,000 and created lines on hisCurrent Deposit Account and PLS Account in petitioner-Bank's Branches situated in Al-Farid Centre and Guru Mandir.
3. On failure of the respondents to repay the finance amount petitioner-Bank filed a suit against respondents as stated above before the Banking Court sometimes in January, 1997 whereas Malik Jehangir Khan who purportedly stood guarantor on behalf of the borrowers filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, cancellation of documents and damages on the averments that fraud and forgery had been committed upon him and. That he did not create any lien on his accounts nor pledged his WAPDA Bonds.
4. Transfer Application was seriously resisted by the petitioner-Bank before the High Court but the learned Chief Justice thought it fit, proper and expedient to order the transfer of the suit from Banking Court to the High Court. The grounds, which prevailed for this view appear to be that the matter in issue in both the suits pertained to be the finance facility sanctioned by the petitioner- Bank in favour of respondent Messrs Quality Garments; that the parties in both the suits were common and that the matter in issue directly and substantially appeared to be the same. Another consideration which found favour with the learned High Court seems to be that the trial of both the suits between the same parties by the same Bench would obviate the possibility of a conflict of decision.
5. At the hearing Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court, representing the petitioner-Bank contended that under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1997) High Court was vested with the jurisdiction to try Banking Suits in respect, of cases in which the outstanding amount of claimed based on a loan or finance exceeds thirty million rupees whereas in respect of cases in which the outstanding amount of claim based on a loan or finance does not exceeds thirty million rupees jurisdiction vests in the Banking Court established under section 4 of Act 1997. Learned counsel submitted that trial of thesuit before the High Court would be without jurisdiction and might create complications for the Bank in the event of a decree at appellate stage. He further submitted that the suit before the Banking Court was at the verge of decision and the transfer of the suit would delay the decision in the suit filed by the petitioner-Bank. Reliance was placed on Gul Hassan & Company v. Allied Bank of Pakistan (1996 SCM R 244).
6. After examining the material on record and going through the impugned judgment we are convinced that the order passed by the High Court is just, fair and equitable on the face of it. It does not suffer from any inherent defect or error of jurisdiction. We are of the view that the 'trial of both the suits would not only be expedient in the interest of justice but also in the interest of both the parties as joint trial of both the suits would certainly obviate the possibility of a conflict of judgment. In our view apprehensions expressed by the petitioner-Bank's counsel are without any basis and no finding can be given on mere surmises. Precedent case does not appear to have any bearing on the facts of this case.
7. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this petition which must fail and is hereby dismissed.