2004 PLP 978 (CLD)

‑‑S.18(6)‑‑‑Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, (XLVI of 2001), S.19(7)‑‑‑Decree for recovery of loan under car‑finance scheme ‑‑‑Car forcibly taken into possession by the Bank‑‑ Application by appellant for return of the car‑‑ Banking Court consigned the application of the appellant to record on the ground that the car in dispute was sold and Bank had adjusted the sale price to its claim‑‑Validity‑‑‑Held, impugned order was not a speaking order, application by the appellant could not be consigned to record merely on the ground that the car in dispute had been sold and the sale amount adjusted‑‑‑Banking Court was bound to decide the application of the appellant in accordance with law‑‑‑Impugned order was set aside by the High Court. Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Appellant. Ashar Elahi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th June, 2003. MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The plaintiff/ respondent‑Bank, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,61,830.00 against the husband of the petitioner namely Khalid Mehmood. The said suit was decreed by the Banking Court No.2, Lahore, on 21‑10‑1999, for a sum of Rs.90,248.00. The, loan was obtained under a Car Finance Scheme for Honda Civic Car Model 1994, 1500 cc bearing Chassis No.PK4‑5201085, Engine No.D15‑1332216‑5‑

98. The judgment‑debtor/husband of the appellant died on 13‑9‑2000. The said car was forcibly taken into possession on 27‑10‑2000 by the staff of the respondent Bank, from the appellant. The appellant moved an application under section 18(6) of the Banking Companies (Recoveries of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, for the return of the car. The learned Judge, Banking Court called for the reply of the respondent and after receiving the same consigned it to record on the ground that the car in dispute has been sold and the decree‑holder has adjusted the sale price.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the application of the appellant cannot be consigned to record merely on the ground that the same has been sold and the sale price adjusted. He urged that the learned Banking Court was bound to decide the application on merits. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank defended the impugned order.

3. We have gone through the impugned order and perused the record. We tend to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the application filed by the appellant could not be consigned to record merely on the ground that the car in dispute has been sold and the same amount adjusted. The Banking Court was bound to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. The impugned order is also not a speaking order. In this view of the matter, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 1‑12‑2001 and send the case back to the Judge Banking Court No.2, Lahore. Resultantly, the application filed by the appellant under section 18(6) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, will be deemed to be pending before the Judge Banking Court No.2, Lahore, who is directed to decide the same in accordance with law. M.A.W./S‑711/L Order accordingly.