Muhammad Arif Vs Faisal Bank 2
Muhammad Arif Vs Faisal Bank 2
Muhammad Arif Vs Faisal Bank 2
Titled As:-
Vs
Titled As:-
Mst. Khalida Bivi, w/o Syed Farhat Abbas, R/O Shekha Tahir, Tehsil
Khariyan, Dist. Gujrat. (Claimant)
Vs
Judgment:
By way of this single judgment, common question of law
of both claims about jurisdiction of this Court is being decided. In this
Judgment the defendant Faisal Bbank shall be called as petitioner
hearing after and Mst. khalida and Muhmmad Arif shall be called as
respondent.
Case study 1:
In the case of SP Aggarwal Vs. The Sanjay Gandi Post
Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Luck now (FA No.778 of
4
Case study 2:
In the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly v/s Dr. Sukumar
Mukherjee & Ors [III(2009) CPJ 17 (SC)], the Supreme Court
observed that even though the proceedings under the CP Act are
judicial proceedings, they are not Civil Courts. Hence, disputes have
to be tried in a summary manner, following the principles of natural
justice, and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are not
applicable to the consumer fora.
conclude this legal aspect that Code of Civil procedure 1908 (Act XX
of 1908) is not applicable on the proceedings before this Court except
in cases provided in section 30 sub section (3) (A to E), therefore the
application filed under order 7 rule 11 of CPC is not maintainable
before this Court. As the petitioners have raised in their written
statements the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of
the claims therefore I am going to decide that objection on its own
merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the
arguments that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim
against the bank. In support of arguments he has produced the
judgment titled Askari Bank LTD and others ….Appellants Vsrsus
Irfan Ahmad Niazi and others….. Respondents. PLD 2016 Lahore
Page 168 and 2016 CLD 1546 and prayed for dismissal of the both
claims.
reproduced as under:
“Act not in derogation of any other law.– The provisions of this Act
shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any
other law for the time being in force.”
11. Before concluding the point raised by the counsel for the
petitioner, I cannot help observing that Financial Intuition (Recovery
of Finances Ordinance, 2001) is a Federal statute while PCP Act
2005 is provincial statute. The article 143 of the Constitution of
Republic of Pakistan 1973 provides precedence the Federal statute
over the Provincial statute. Reliance is placed on the case reported in
PLD 2016 Lahore Page 168 it has been held…….
also after seeking the guidance from the water mark esteemed
judgments referred above I am constrained to hold that this Court
lacks jurisdiction to entertain both the claims which are hereby
returned to both the claimants Mst. khalida and Muhammad Arif to be
presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction if so advised.
Announced: 19-04-2017
Certificate:-
It is certified that this order consists of nine pages and
each page has been dictated, read, corrected and signed by me.
Announced: 19-04-2017