2002 PLP 441 (CLD)

M.A. Sayeed, Iqbal L. Bawany and Neel Keshav for Defendants. The point for consideration is the question of jurisdiction of the Court before which this suit is to be tried in view of the valuation of the suit in pursuance the provisions of section 2(b) of the. Financial Institution (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001. Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, learned counsel for defendants Nos.3, 4 and 5 has argued that the deciding factor for the purposes of jurisdiction is the total value of claim as specified in subsection (b) of section 2 of the Financial Institution (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001 (Ord. XLVI of 2001). The reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff at Serial Nos (a)(b)(c) and (d) of the prayer clauses are in addition to the relief for decree for a sum of Rs. 5 crore at Serial No.(e) of the prayer clause and this suit falls within the jurisdiction of High Court. His contention is that it is the amount of "claim" in suit as mentioned in subsection. (b)(i) of section 2, which requires consideration for arriving at a conclusion in this respect. The question of jurisdiction for the purpose of court‑fee and valuation is a relevant fact to be considered in such cases. Learned counsel has also referred Order II, rule 3, C.P.C. providing value at the aggregate amount of reliefs. For the purpose of determining jurisdiction of the Court; reliance is also placed on section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. Mr. Iqbal L. Bawany, learned counsel while adopting the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, Advocate has further argued that the suit has been subjected to levy of maximum court‑fee in the present case. However, had the court‑fee been liable on the basis of actual valuation on ad‑valorem basis, this suit would have involved payment of court‑fee on a sum of Rs. 5 crores appearing at prayer (e) in addition to the court‑fee payable for the reliefs (a)(b)(c) and (d). Under these circumstances, valuation of the suit would have exceeded to Rs.5 crores. These arguments have been adopted by Mr. Neil Keshav and Mr. Maqbool Baqar, Advocates. In order to examine this question, the definition of 'Banking Court' may be considered as provided under section 2(b) and is reproduced as follows:‑‑ "'Banking Court' means‑‑‑ (i) in respect of a case in‑ which the claim does not exceed fifty million rupees or for the trial of offences under this Ordinance, the Court established under section 5; and (ii) in respect of any other case, the High Court." For consideration of value of the suit the same is to be worked out on the basis of aggregate amount as provided under Order 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which is. reproduced as follows:‑‑

2. Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject‑matters at the date of instituting the suit." Provisions of section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act are also attracted in the matter which is reproduced as under:‑‑

8. Court‑fee value and jurisdictional value to be the same in certain suits. Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court Fees Act, 1870, section 7 paragraphs (v), (vi) and (ix), paragraph (x), clause (d) court‑fees are payable ad valorem under the Court Fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court‑fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same." According to the Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition "Claim" means, to demand as one's own or as one's right to assert to urge to insist, A cause of action. Means by or through which claimant obtains possessions or enjoyment of privilege or thing". Section 7 of the aforesaid Ordinance provides for powers of Banking Courts. Under the provision of section 7(1)(a) the Banking Court has all the powers vested in a Civil Court and the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are attracted to the proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rule 3 of Order 2 provides for the aggregate of the amount in addition to the provisions of section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act providing for the valuation to be the same for determination of the court- fees and the jurisdiction of the Court. In view of the above provisions of law which are attracted to the present case, the claim of the plaintiff for purposes of valuation is in excess of Rupees 5 crores as such the suit falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court within the meaning of section 2(b)(ii) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑281 /K Order accordingly.