Pakistan Case LawMessrs HUDAYBIA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED And 8 Others Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED And 7 Other
This matter concerns two review petitions arising from a previous judgment regarding the execution powers of a Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioners challenged the previous finding that the procedure for executing a decree in the Special Court was governed strictly by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that this ignored the specific powers of confirmation of auction vested in the Special Court under Section 8(3) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court found that a valid case for review was established, noting that the previous judgment may have failed to give due effect to the express reservations and powers of confirmation retained by the Special Court in its earlier orders. Consequently, the Court admitted the review petitions for hearing, directed that notices be issued to the respondents, and ordered the matters to be placed before a larger bench. Additionally, the Court imposed an interim injunction restraining the parties from transferring or encumbering the property in dispute pending the final outcome of the review proceedings.
- Does a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 possess powers of auction confirmation distinct from the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a review petition be entertained where the previous judgment allegedly failed to give effect to statutory powers of the court?
- Is a party who was not an appellant in the original proceedings entitled to file a review petition?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---These two Review Petitions have been moved on the ground chat in the judgment under review, a power of the Special Court was recognized in express terms by holding as hereunder:--
".. So far as execution of the decree passed by the Special Court is concerned the procedure provided in section 8(3) is contrary to the procedure provided for execution of a decree under the C.P.C."
The reservation by the Court of the power of confirmation of auction, as distinguished from confirmation of sale made in Order dated 14-9-1985 in the following words:--
"Since there is no concluded compromise the auction may , go on. However, auction may not be confirmed in the meanwhile. Notice to the Bank for a date in the first week of October, 1985. Let this order be telegraphically conveyed to the auctioneer at the expense of thepetitioners today." and the condition No.9 reproduced hereunder:
"The auction shall be subject to confirmation by this Court"; both of which were within the amplitude of the power possessed by the Court under section 8(3) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, in the matter of the execution of decree, were ignored or not given due effect to in holding that the sale was to be governed throughout by the provisions of the C.P.C. Overriding these express reservations.
2.We consider that a case for hearing of the review matters is made out. Notice should issue to the respondents. The matters be placed before a larger Bench of which the author judge of the impugned judgment may, if possible, be a member.
3.In Civil Review Petition No.8-R of 1988, raising the same questions, as have been dealt with, the objection is that the petitioners therein were not appellants before the Court and have no right to move a review petition. We do not proposo dealing with this objection because we are issuing notice in the other matter. This Review Petition should be heard subject to the objection with regard to the locus standi of the Petitioners to move such application. Let the matter be heard before vacation, by a larger Bench in which the author judge should be included. In the meantime the parties concerned shall not transfer or encumber the property, without permission of the Court.
Judges on this bench
- Shafiur Rahman2,457 judgments
- Rustam S. Sidhwa1,121 judgments