1992 PLP 794 (CLC)

(b) Banking Companies (Recovery of 1Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑No appeal would' be admitted to hearing unless appellants deposited in cash decretal amount with Court in cash or at discretion of Appellate Court furnished security equal to such amount‑‑‑Appellants having not fulfilled condition precedent for admission of their appeal, appeal was admitted for, regular hearing by. Court giving direction to appellants to furnish Bank guarantee for decretal amo4rit up to specified date. MA: Aziz for Appellants', MA: Zafar for Responde6t. On a suit riled by Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan, on 25‑7‑1985, for the .recovery of Rs.10,66,951.07 against Messrs Karraz Corporation and two others my learned brother Mahboob Ahmad, J (as he then was) decreed the suit against the appellants with, futum‑interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of the institution of the sail till the realisation of the decretal amount. , The, appellants/judgment‑debtors ‑preferred the instant appeal under section 12 of the. Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 which was admitted to regular hearing on 17‑3-1987 by the Registrar of this pursuant an application (C.M: No.3118/87) under Order X0, rule 5‑read with section 151,: C.P:C. moved by the appellants seeking stay of she execution‑ proceedings, notice was issued to the decree‑holder and status quo directed to be maintained meanwhile. On 26‑91989 it transpired that no order as envisaged under section 12 (5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 was Passed and the case was adjourned allowing the appellants to‑show as to why they be not asked to file the security under section 12(5) of the‑ aforementioned Ordinance. Thereafter the case ,suffered two adjournments.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, the Registrar of this Court is not competent to hear the appeals riled under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. At provided under subsection (4) of `section 12 the appeal shall be heard by a Bench of tot legs than two Judges; 'Similarly. no appeal shall be admitted to hearing unless the appellants deposit in cash with this Court the amount equivalent to. the judgment‑debt or at the discretion of this Court furnish security equal in value to that amount. This requirement of law is a condition precedent for admission of the, appeal. In the instant case, therefore, the Registrar was not competent to admit the appeal much less without deposit in cash of the decretal amount or furnishing the security equivalent in value to such amount as required under subsection (5) of section 12 of the Ordinance. Undoubtedly, the decree was passed against the appellants on 11‑11‑1986 which was challenged in appeal under section 12 of the aforementioned Ordinance on 3‑1‑1987 but neither the decretal amount was deposited nor security furnished therefor presumably awaiting the order of the Court in this behalf. We accordingly admit this appeal to regular hearing and direct the e appellants to furnish Bank guarantee for the decretal amount on or before 3‑4‑1991.

4. This appeal to come up for further proceedings on 6‑4‑1991. H.B.T./K‑12/L Appeal admitted for hearing.