2002 PLP 739 (CLD)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 7, 17 & 22‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)‑‑ General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24‑A‑‑‑Decree for recovery of money‑‑‑Appellants being stranger to such decree filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C., for setting aside the same‑‑ Banking Court by merely mentioning one sentence dismissed the application as time‑barred as well as on merits‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Judicial Officers must pass judgments with reasons‑‑‑Public functionaries, in view of S.24‑A, General Clauses Act, 1897, were duty bound to pass orders with reasons‑‑-High Court set aside the impugned order with observations that application filed by the appellants would be deemed to be pending adjudication before Banking Court to be decided within specified time. Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others PLD 1970 SC 173 and Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid‑e‑Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268 rel. Abid Hassan Minto for Appellants. Sh. Maqbool Ahmad for Respondent No.

1. Shahid Ikram Siddiqui for Respondent No.8. The appellants have challenged the vires of the order of the Banking Court dated 29‑11‑2001 through this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are stranger and were not party before the Banking Court qua the suit filed by the respondent‑Bank against the original loanee. The appellant filed F.A.O. No.115 of 1999 being aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the Banking Court before this Court. During the pendency of that appeal the appellants were directed to avail appropriate remedy before the Banking Court. The appellants filed application under section 12(2), C.P.C. before the learned Banking Court, the learned Banking Court dismissed the same vide order, dated 29‑11‑2001. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Banking Court had erred in law to dismiss the application of the appellants without adverting to the contents of the application of the appellants. He further submits that the impugned order does not contain any reason. He further urges that the appellants were not party before the Banking Court in the suit filed by the respondent‑Bank against the original loanee, therefore, the appellants have no remedy before any higher forum except to file the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The learned counsel of the auction‑purchaser submits that the impugned order is valid in the eyes of law as the Banking Court passed an order after applying his mind and found that the application of the appellants was liable to be dismissed as time‑barred as well as on merits. He further submits that the auction‑purchaser is penalized due to this litigation as the auction‑purchaser had already deposited Rs.44,75,000 on 22‑3‑1999. He further submits that the respondents‑Bank is not pursuing the case with proper care and diligence

2. The learned counsel of the respondent‑Bank submits that the impugned order is a valid order in the eye of law. He further submits that auction‑purchaser is entitled to get the auction price deposited by the auction‑purchaser with profit in ease the appeal of the appellants i.e. F.A.O. No. 115 of 1999 or the present appeal is accepted in favour of the appellants and this Court or the Banking Court set aside the auction held under the order of the Banking Court.

3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ourselves.

4. The impugned order itself reveals that the learned Banking Court did not advert to the contents of the application filed by the appellants and dismissed the same as time‑barred 4, and merely mentioned one sentence that the application is also dismissed on merits. The superior Courts always insisted that the Judicial Officers must pass judgments with reasons. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1970 SC 173) After addition of section 24‑A of the General Clauses Act it is the duty even of the public C functionaries to pass orders with reasons as per principles laid down in Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid‑e‑Azam International Airport, Karachi and others (1998 SCMR 2268).

5. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned' order is set aside meaning thereby that the application filed by the appellants before the learned Banking Court under section 12(2), C.P.C. shall be deemed to be pending adjudication. Parties are directed to appear before the Banking Court on 29‑3‑2002 who shall dispose of the application of the appellants filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. till 15‑7‑2002. The parties are directed to maintain status quo till that date. S.A.K./Z‑98/L Order accordingly.