Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: The BANK OF PUNJAB VS Respondent: JUDGE BANKING COURT and others
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Shahid Jamil Khan Title: The BANK OF PUNJAB vs JUDGE BANKING COURT and others Case No.: Writ Petition No.10712 of 2013 Date of Judgment:2015-02-10 Reported As: 2015 CLD 1811 Result: Cage remanded.
Judgment ORDER ' SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, J.---Petitioner has challenged order dated 24-5-2013 passed by Judge Banking Court No.I, Multan whereby an application under proviso to section 27 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance 2001") was dismissed relying on certain judgments by this Court. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the findings that an order which enhances the decretal amount, is not an arithmetical mistake and that the word "arithmetical mistake" was purposely omitted by a legislature from proviso to section 27 of the Ordinance. 3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has vehemently opposed this petition and submits that writ petition is not maintainable as the order passed by learned Banking Court is a final order and petitioner should have filed an appeal under section 22 of the Ordinance. He has relied on judgment by Division Bench of this court reported as "Askari Commercial Bank Limited through Authorized Signatory v. Messrs Bake Line Products through Partners and 5 others" (2013 CLD 836) to support findings by the Appellate court that any enhancement in decretal amount is not an arithmetical mistake. 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. Perusal of the order by learned Banking Court has revealed that very mistake alleged by petitioner in their application has not been dilated upon. Learned Court was bound to find out the nature of mistake first, before giving its finding on law. Non-exercise of jurisdiction is a material irregularity which can be corrected in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. 6. For the stated reasons, the impugned order dated 24-5-2013 is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned Banking Court where application of the petitioner shall be deemed
---
## Page 2
as pending. The needful shall be done after providing an opportunity of being heard to both parties within 30 days from receipt of this Order. 7. Disposed of. Cage remanded.