Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM MUSTAFA BUGHIO and anothers VS Respondent: JUDGE BANKING COURT
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Sabihuddin Ahmed, Maqbool Baqar Title: GHULAM MUSTAFA BUGHIO and anothers vs JUDGE BANKING COURT Case No.: C.P.No,587 of 2003, Date of Judgment:2005-04-08 Reported As: 2006 CLD 528 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' Petitioner No,1 who is carrying on business under the name and style of Mining and Industrial Consultants (proprietorship firm), has filed this petition, calling in question a judgment and decree of the learned respondent No,1 in favour of the respondent No,2. In the first place petitioner No,2 is not a legal person and merely a trade name under which the petitioner No,1 carries on business and therefore, only proceedings initiated by the petitioner No,1 could be entertained. Again a judgment, decree and trial order of the Banking Court is appealable before this Court under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and therefore, the petitioner could not invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in the presence of an alternate and efficacious remedy. Syed Saleemuddin Nasir has relied upon a case of Messrs Unicom Enterprises v. Banking Court No,5, City Court Building, Karachi and 2 others 2004 CLD 1452, which also support this view. Indeed we could possibly treat this petition as an appeal under the aforesaid Ordinance, provided it was filed within the period of. Limitation prescribed by law. Nevertheless, we have noticed that though the judgment of the respondent No,1 was pronounced on 1-3-2003. The petitioner applied for a copy as late as 26-3-2003 and the appeal, therefore, ought to have been filed on or before 6-4-2003. Indeed it is well-settled that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be invoked to circumvent the law of limitation and if the petitioner fails to avail the alternate and efficacious remedy available under the law through his own negligence he cannot seek relief under Article 199 of the Constitution. Moreover, no explanation for the delay has been offered. In the circumstances we have no option but to dismiss this petition in limine along with the listed applications.