2015 PLP 1811 (CLD)
The BANK OF PUNJAB-Petitioner Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 1811 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | The BANK OF PUNJAB-Petitioner Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 1811 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 1811 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 1811 (CLD) (The BANK OF PUNJAB-Petitioner Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Iqbal for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Masood Sabir for Respondents.
- 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the findings that an order which enhances the decretal amount, is not an arithmetical mistake and that the word "arithmetical mistake" was purposely omitted by a legislature from proviso to section 27 of the Ordinance.
- 3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has vehemently opposed this petition and submits that writ petition is not maintainable as the order passed by learned Banking Court is a final order and petitioner should have filed an appeal under section 22 of the Ordinance. He has relied on judgment by Division Bench of this court reported as "Askari Commercial Bank Limited through Authorized Signatory v. Messrs Bake Line Products through Partners and 5 others" (2013 CLD 836) to support findings by the Appellate court that any enhancement in decretal amount is not an arithmetical mistake.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 27, proviso
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Arithmetical mistake
Decretal amount, enhancement of-- Plea raised by plaintiff Bank was that order, which enhanced decretal amount was not an arithmetical mistake
Mistake alleged by plaintiff Bank was not dilated upon and Banking Court was bound to find out the nature of mistake first before giving its finding on law-- Non-exercise of jurisdiction was a material irregularity which could be corrected in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction
High Court set aside the order in question and remanded the matter to Banking Court for deciding the application afresh
Petition was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, J.
Petitioner has challenged order dated 24-5-2013 passed by Judge Banking Court No.I, Multan whereby an application under proviso to section 27 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance 2001") was dismissed relying on certain judgments by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the findings that an order which enhances the decretal amount, is not an arithmetical mistake and that the word "arithmetical mistake" was purposely omitted by a legislature from proviso to section 27 of the Ordinance.
3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has vehemently opposed this petition and submits that writ petition is not maintainable as the order passed by learned Banking Court is a final order and petitioner should have filed an appeal under section 22 of the Ordinance. He has relied on judgment by Division Bench of this court reported as "Askari Commercial Bank Limited through Authorized Signatory v. Messrs Bake Line Products through Partners and 5 others" (2013 CLD 836) to support findings by the Appellate court that any enhancement in decretal amount is not an arithmetical mistake.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Perusal of the order by learned Banking Court has revealed that very mistake alleged by petitioner in their application has not been dilated upon. Learned Court was bound to find out the nature of mistake first, before giving its finding on law. Non-exercise of jurisdiction is a material irregularity which can be corrected in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
6. For the stated reasons, the impugned order dated 24-5-2013 is, set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned Banking Court' where application of the petitioner shall be deemed as pending. The needful shall be done after providing an opportunity of being heard to both parties within 30 days from receipt of this Order.