AHMED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY through ATTORNEY vs HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI and 2 others
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Banking Court imposing costs of Rs. 6,382 as a condition for granting an adjournment to cover the travelling expenses of a witness who had travelled from Rawalpindi to depose in support of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner also challenged the jurisdiction of the Banking Court to entertain an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions involved the propriety of imposing costs for adjournment and the maintainability of Section 12(2) applications in proceedings under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court has the discretion to grant conditional adjournments, and awarding travelling expenses for a witness coming from afar is a proper exercise of discretion that cannot be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable in proceedings emanating from the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine with costs.
- Whether a Banking Court has the discretion to impose costs as a condition for granting an adjournment?
- Can the exercise of discretion regarding conditional adjournments be disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure maintainable in proceedings emanating from the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
ORDER
1. ' In the instant petition the grievance of the petition is that the while granting adjournment the Presiding Officer Banking Court imposed cost of Rs.6,382 to the witness, who had come to depose on behalf of the opposite-party in support of an application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
2. ' The Court has discretion to grant adjournment conditional or unconditional. Here the adjournment was conditional subject to costs for the reason that, the witness had come from Rawalpindi to meet the travelling expenses were awarded. We are, therefore, of the view that the discretion exercised was proper and cannot be disturbed under Constitutional jurisdiction.
3. ' The petitioner has also made a feeble attempt to challenge the jurisdiction of the Banking Court to entertain application under section 12(2), C.P.C. It is now well-settled that application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is maintainable in proceedings emanating from the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
4. ' With the above observation, the petition is dismissed in limine with cost.
Cited by 5 cases
- Sohail Niaz Gill vs Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad and others 2023 MLD 708
- M/s. Visiontex, etc. vs Habib Bank Limited 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 566
- Messrs VISIONTEX, PARTNERSHIP FIRM through Partner and 4 others vs HABIB 2016 CLD 62
- Messrs ARK GARMENTS INDUSTRY (PVT) LTD through Managing Director and 2 otherss vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN 2013 CLD 1002
- Messrs ARK GARMENTS INDUSTRY (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director 2013 CLD 1002, 2013 MLD 1349