2021 PLP 823 (CLD)

Through the instant First Appeal against Order, filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the "Ordinance"), the Appellant seeks setting aside of order dated 02.02.2021 (the "impugned order") passed by the Banking Court-II, Multan (the "Banking Court") whereby it directed the Appellant to handover the vehicle to the Respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1 filed suit for declaration in respect of Vehicle bearing Registration No.LEA-20-7052 Corolla before the Banking Court which passed order dated 22.01.2021 by granting injunction in favour of the Respondent No.1 and subsequently vide impugned order directed the Appellant to handover aforesaid vehicle to the Respondent. Hence this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Banking Court has not taken into consideration the true facts and circumstances of the case while passing the impugned order; that the impugned order is illegal and unlawful, as such is not sustainable in the eye of law; that the impugned order has been passed without looking into the record and determining the amount as such it is liable to be set aside.

4. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.

5. The counsel for the Appellant has laid much stress on the point that the Banking Court vide impugned order granted interim relief to the Respondent No.1 without looking into record and determining the amount. It evinces from the record that a suit for declaration was filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Banking Court and injunction, in this respect, was also granted on 22.01.2021 subject to payment of due installments till January, 2021. The bare examination of impugned order reveals that it has three parts. In the first part, the Banking Court, keeping in view the compliance of its earlier order dated 22.01.2021, allowed his request for return of vehicle. Whereas in the second part, condition for deposit of remaining installment till February, 2021 was also imposed which too was subject to clearance of due installments and deposit of Rs.25,000/- as repossession and warehouse charges in the bank. While in the third part, condition to furnish surety bond of Rs.20,00,000/- before the Banking Court was also imposed. It is noted that the suit filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Banking Court is pending and is at initial stage and interim relief granted to the Respondent No.1 is conditional one and time provided therein for submission of installment has not been completed so far. Moreover, Section 10 of the Ordinance provides for the right to file an application for leave to defend to the Appellant which admittedly has not been filed as is evident from the order sheet appended with impugned order. While section 10(3) of the Ordinance clearly states that an application for leave to defend shall be the form of a written statement and contain a summary of the substantial questions of law and fact for which evidence needs to be recorded. Since the matter is pending before the Banking Court which requires evidence under the provisions of the Ordinance therefore, the Appellant may raise all objections by filing leave to defend in terms of Section 10 of the Ordinance.

6. In view of above, we agree with the findings of the Banking Court which rightly passed the impugned order and do not see any illegality or perversity therein having been passed strictly in accordance with law, as such does not warrant any interference by us. Consequently, the Appeal in hand, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. SA/B-2/L Appeal dismissed.