2002 PLP 1655 (MLD)

SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CJ.‑‑‑In Constitutional Petition No.D‑531 of 1999, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:‑‑ (a) Declare that the impugned order passed on 6‑11‑1998 in C.M.As. of Suit No.83 of 1997 to‑the extent of not taking on record the written statement of petitioner i.e. defendant No.2 in Suit No.83 of 1997 is illegal and discriminatory. (b) Direct the Hon'ble Banking Court to take on record the written statement filed by petitioner i.e. defendant No.2 in Suit No.83 of 1997 and the petitioner be allowed to contest the Suit No.83 of 1997. (c) Declare that all the employees of the Bank while in service can be represented by the attorney of the Bank as the Attorney and the employees represent the Bank. (d) any other or better relief and reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. In Constitutional Petition No.D‑1843 of 1998, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:‑‑ (a) Declare that the impugned order passed on 6‑11‑1998 in C.M.As. of Suit No.83 of 1997 to the extent of not taking on record the written statement of petitioner No.2 i.e. defendant No.5 in Suit No.83 of 19.97 is illegal and discriminatory. (b) Direct the Hon'ble Banking Court to take on record the written, statement filed by petitioner No.2 i.e defendant No.5 in Suit No.83 of 1997 and the petitioner No.2 be allowed to contest the Suit No. 83 of 1997. (c) Declare that the impugned order to the extent of respondent No.5 has no legal effect. (d) Declare that all the employees of the Bank while in service can be represented by the attorney of the Bank as the Attorney and the employees represent the Bank. (e) Any other or better relief and reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deem fit. Both the above Constitutional petitions have been filed against an interlocutory order dated 8‑3‑1999 of a learned Single Judge of this Court passed on applications under Order 9, rule 13, C.P.C. and rule 159 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules filed on behalf of the petitioner in Constitutional Petition No.531 of 1999 and petitioner No.2 in Constitutional Petition No.D‑1843 of 1998 in Suit No.83 of 1997. Suit No.83 of 1997 was filed for declaration, injunction, cancellation and damages initially on the original side of this Court. During the proceedings, the petitioner in Constitutional Petition No.D‑531 of 1999 and petitioner No.2 in Constitutional Petition No. D‑1843 of 1998 were debarred from filing their written statements as they did not submit the same within the stipulated period of time. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the banking jurisdiction of this Court and fresh summons/notices were served on the petitioner and petitioner No.2. However, none of them submitted application for leave to defend the suit. The suit after its transfer to the Banking Court was governed by the provisions of the repealed Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. Section 21 of the Act of 1997 specifies the orders against which an appeal can be filed. Section 21 does not provide an appeal against an interlocutory order. It is a settled principle of law that when a statute does not provide an appeal against an interlocutory order, then the same can also not be challenged by way of a Constitutional petition as the same would amount to negate the provisions of the statute. The proper course for the party in the circumstances would be to wait for the final order and then file an appeal against the same wherein he can also impugn interlocutory order. In support of the above reliance is placed on the cases of (i) Syed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, S&GAD, Karachi and another (1996 SCMR 1165) and (ii) Muhammad Iftikhar Mohmand v. Javed Muhammad and 31 others (1998 SCMR 328). Upon the above discussion, we find that both the above Constitutional petitions are misconceived and not maintainable. On 10‑10‑2001, by a short order we had dismissed both the above Constitutional petitions in limine together with the miscellaneous applications pending therein for reasons to be recorded later. These are the reasons for the said short order. H.B.T./F‑36/K Petition dismissed.