2015 PLP 159 (GBLR)

DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, C.J.

The above petitions were heard together as these arisen out of a common Judgment in C.M. No.81/2012 on a common question of law and facts vide C.F.As. Nos. 32/2012, 34/2012, 35/2012 36/2012, 37/2012, 38/2012, 39/2012, 40/2012, 41/2012, 42/2012, 43/2012, 45/2012, 47/2012, 48/2012, 49/2012, 52/2012, 54/2012, 60/2012, 67/2012, 68/2012, 03/2013, 10/2013, 11/2013 and 20/2013, as all of them have been preferred in civil appeals in the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan against the judgments/orders dated 27.06.2012 passed by the same court for review. The learned Division Bench, Chief Court vide impugned judgments in C.M. No.81/2012 dated 16.12.2013 were pleased to accept the said Review Petitions partially and accordingly set aside the impugned Judgment in C.F.A. No. 09/2012 passed on 27.06.2012 holding that the Banking Judge so appointed in consonance of section 5 of the Ordinance by the Gilgit-Baltistan Council through its Minister in-charge and the orders were issued by the Deputy Secretary Law. Resultantly, the proceeding and orders made/passed by Mr. Muhammad Alam and Mr. Khurshid Alam as Banking Judge were in accordance with the prevailing law. The appeals bearing Nos at Para No.1 of the said judgment on the subject of jurisdiction have no legal force, hence dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued mainly on the point of Jurisdiction. They contended that the Banking Court has not vested the jurisdiction under the mandatory provisions of "The Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001", hence, the order of the Banking Court passed thereto was void ab initio and arbitrary in the eyes of law. Similarly, the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan has fallen in error and has not appreciated that the learned District Judge, Mr. Muhammad Alam was appointed by the Provincial Government having no jurisdiction to appoint and the judgments/decrees passed by the said Court were coram non judice, consequently, the impugned decrees are also void ab initio and liable to set aside. They further contended that both the District Court and Banking Court were not established in accordance with law and their Presiding Officers were also not have been appointed by the Federal Government in pursuance of the mandatory provision of The Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, hence, the orders/Judgments rendered by them are coram non judice and not sustainable and liable to set aside. Consequently, they prayed that the impugned Judgment in C.M. No.81/2012 dated 16.12.2013 passed by the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan be set aside by declaring that the impugned ex-party decrees and their execution orders passed thereto against the petitioners by the Banking Court are void ab initio as the same were passed without any jurisdiction and lawful authority. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/National Bank of Pakistan contended that the orders/Judgments passed by the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan are well reasoned and according to law. He furthers submits that Banking Courts were established in accordance with law and their Presiding Officers were also competently appointed as after promulgation of "The Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009", the authority of the appointment rests with the Gilgit-Baltistan Council under Serial 5, 13 and 50 of the (III) Schedule of the said Order. He lastly, contended that the counsel for the petitioners could not point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgments in C.M. No.81/2011 dated 16.12.2013, passed by the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan, hence, the petitions for leave to appeal be dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 16.12.2013 of the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan passed in C.M. No. 81/2012 be maintained. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the record and gone through "The Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009", and in our considered opinion, no illegality and infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the impugned judgment in C.M. No. 81/2012 dated 16.12.2013 passed by the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan. Consequently, the petitions are converted into appeals and the same are dismissed. The impugned judgments of the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan dated 16.12.2013 is maintained. All appeals are dismissed. HBT/207/GB Appeals dismissed.