2007 PLP 477 (CLD)

This order shall also dispose of F.A.Os. Nos.326'and 327 of 2006 as common questions are involved.

2. The appellants in all these three cases feel aggrieved of orders dated 28-7-2006 passed by a learned Judge, Banking Court-I, Gujranwala, whereby the objection petitions filed by the appellants questioning the sale of mortgaged properties were dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that no period of limitation has been provided for an appeal against an order passed under section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, will have no application.

4. We have gone through the copies of the available records, appended with these F.A.Os. by the learned counsel. We deem it appropriate to state hereunder some relevant dates in these cases: (i) As stated by us above, the impugned orders were passed in all these F.A.Os. on 28-7-2006. (ii) In the matter of F.A.O. No.325 of 2006 the application for copy was filed on 17-8-2006. It was prepared and delivered on 11-9-2006. The F.A.O. was filed in this Court on 18-10-2006. (iii) In the matter of F.A.Os. Nos.326. and 327 of 2006, the applications for copies were filed on 22-8-2006. These were prepared and delivered on 11-9-2006 while the appeals were filed in this Court on 18-10-2006. It will, thus, be seen that F.A.O. No.325 of 2006 could have been filed on 22-9-2006 whereas the remaining two F.A.Os. could have been filed on 16-9-2006 whereas these were filed on 18-10-2006.

5. Now coming to the said contention of the learned counsel, we find the same to be without any force. It is well settled that right of appeal is to be specifically conferred by a Statute. This right has been conferred under section 22(1) of the said Ordinance of 2001 which may be reproduced hereunder:-- "

22. Appeal.

(1) Subject to subsection (2), any person aggrieved by any. judgment, decree, sentence or final order passed by a Banking Court may, within thirty days of such judgment, decree, sentence or final order prefer an appeal to the High Court." Now subsection (6) of the said section 22 being relied upon by the learned counsel is reproduced hereunder:-- "(6) No appeal, review or revision shall lie against an order accepting or rejecting an application for leave to defend, or any interlocutory order of the Banking Court which does not dispose of the entire case before the , Banking Court other than an order passed under subsection (1) .of section 15 or subsection (7) of section 19." The precise contention of the learned counsel is that since subsection (6) takes an order under section 19(7) of the said Ordinance out of, the pale of interlocutory order the period of limitation had to be prescribed separately for it. We are afraid the entire section 22 has to be read and subsection (6) thereof' cannot be read in isolation. When the said entire provision is read together, the only reasonable interpretation is that right of appeal has been conferred upon an aggrieved person in the matter of a judgment, decree, sentence or final order passed by a Banking Court, an ex parte decree subsection (5) and an order passed under section 15(11) or section 19(7) subsection (6). The controlling provision would, of course, be subsection (1) of section 22 of the said Ordinance which provides that the appeal has to be filed in this Court within 30 days of the passing of the said orders or judgments or decrees or sentences.

6. Now since the said application in all the three cases is absolutely silent as to why the appeals have not been filed in time, we called upon the learned counsel if he can give any explanation. He stated that earlier his clients had filed writ petitions in all these cases. The certified copies of the order passed in the said writ petitions are available in all the three files. We find that the writ petitions were filed on 20-9-2006 and were withdrawn by the learned counsel on 9-10-2006 in order to file appeals. We were inclined to exclude the said period of time on the analogy of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. We further called upon the learned counsel to state as to why the appeals were not filed when the limitation was still thereon the date of the withdrawal of the said writ petitions. He states that he had not wasted any time and he was busy in preparing the cases. We find that the cases were prepared as per date recorded .on the F.A.Os. on 10-10-2006 and even the urgent form is dated 13-10-2006. Still the appeals were filed on 18-10-2006. When confronted the learned counsel has no explanation.

7. In view of the above circumstances, no cause stands made out for condonation of delay in the filing of these F.A.Os. which are accordingly dismissed as barred by time. F.B./N-125/L Appeals dismissed.