2002 PLP 612 (CLD)

‑‑‑‑O.XX, R.7‑‑‑Decree cannot be dated prior, to date of judgment. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) ‑‑‑‑Ss.2(c), 7(6) & 22‑‑‑Pecuniary jurisdiction‑‑‑Suit for, recovery of amount less than Rs.50,000,000‑‑‑Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 came into force on 30‑8 2001‑‑‑Single Judge of High Court announced judgment in such suit on . 10‑9‑2001‑‑‑Contention of defendants was that jurisdiction to decide such suit being vested in Banking Court by virtue of S. 7(6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 judgment and decree passed on 10‑9‑2001 were without jurisdiction ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Single Judge of High Court had passed impugned judgment and decree due to an oversight and without keeping in view the provisions of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001‑‑‑Appellate Court set aside impugned decree being without jurisdiction with direction to send record of the case to Banking Court which was the forum having jurisdiction in the matter. Salman Akram Raja for Appellants. Khashnood Akhtar Raja for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th December, 2001. JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑--The short point on which this appeal was admitted to regular hearing, has already been noted in the order, dated 6‑11‑2001. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment in this case was announced on 10‑9‑2001 although the hearing of the case took place on 1‑8‑2001, 6‑8‑2001 and 7‑8‑2001, while the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 came into force on 30‑8‑2001.

2. By virtue of subsection (6) of section 7 of the said statute, the jurisdiction in the present case lay with the learned Banking Court because the amount of the claim in the present case, was less than Rs.50,000,

000. On this basis, it was argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 10‑9‑2001 were without jurisdiction keeping in mind the provisions of section 7(6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank points out that the decree sheet drawn up by the office of this Court, is dated 7‑8‑2001 which is a date prior to the promulgation of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. It is obvious from the record that the date given on the decree sheet is incorrect because the decree could not be dated prior to the date of the judgment which, as noted above, is. 10‑9‑2001. This is the mandate of Order XX. rule 7, C.P.C.

4. In view of the above circumstances, we hold that the impugned judgment and decree were passed by the learned Single Judge due to an oversight and without keeping in view the provisions of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The impugned decree, therefore, being without jurisdiction is set aside.

5. The record of the case shall be sent forthwith to the Banking Court at Lahore which is the forum having jurisdiction in the matter.

6. Since the parties are represented, they are directed to appear before the Banking Court No.1 at Lahore on 10‑1‑2002. S.A.K./N‑145/L Order accordingly.