HABIB-UR-REHMAN vs THE JUDGE BANKING COURT NO. IV, LAHORE
This matter arises from a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging an order of the Lahore High Court which had dismissed a writ petition against a discretionary order of the Banking Court imposing costs of Rs. 3000/- as a condition for granting an adjournment in a recovery suit. The core legal question was whether a discretionary order of a trial court imposing costs for adjournment is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, and whether the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 190 can be invoked to bypass statutory procedures. The Supreme Court held that the discretionary order passed by the Banking Court fell within its jurisdiction and was rightly held by the High Court not to be open to scrutiny under Article 199, and further held that Article 190 jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary legal remedies where lower tribunals' actions suffer from no legal taint. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a discretionary order passed by a Banking Court granting an adjournment subject to costs is open to scrutiny under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Can the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 190 of the Constitution be invoked as a substitute for ordinary proceedings before courts and tribunals?
- Article 199, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
- Article 190, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.- In proceedings before the Banking Court No. IV, Lahore (in Suit No. 146 of 1997 for recovery of Rs. 25,54,647/-plus further markup/interest), the learned Presiding Officer made the following order on 19.10.1998. {{URDU TEXT}}
2. The petitioner challenged the above order dated 19.10.1998 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through Writ Petition No. 24238 of 1998 and the learned Judge in Chambers was pleased to dismiss the same, on 25.11.1998, with the observation that the adjournment granted by the Banking Court No. IV, Lahore on 19,10.1998 was subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 3000/- and, the discretionary order thus passed, does not fall for scrutiny in proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Hence this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution with the following prayer clause:- " It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously declare as under:- "(a) That the impugned order imposing costs to petitioner by learned respondent Judge is without lawful authority and of no legal effect; "(b) That petitioner thus has a right to seek transfer of the case to other Court of competent jurisdiction.
" Any other relief which deems fit may also be granted to the humble petitioner.
" It is further most respectfully prayed that as an ad-interim relief , the proceedings of the suit titled as Regional Development Finance Corporation Versus Ws. Zodiac Knitwear (Pvt). Limited and others before the learned respondent may very graciously be stayed till decision of the petition."
3. Mr. Jawahar A. Naqvee, learned ASC appearing in support of this petition has simply argued that there was enough material available with the Banking Court to grant the postponement without subjecting the petitioner to the payment of a sum of Rs. 3000/- as costs; that this Court can issue appropriate directions to all the authorities in the country in aid of its process and therefore, prayed that a direction may be issued in terms of Article 190 of the Constitution.
4. As regards the first limb of the argument, we suffice by observing that the order being purely discretionary and falliuig within the four corners of the jurisdiction of the learned Presiding Officer, the learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in observing that such an order does not fall for any further scrutiny by the High Court within the contemplation of Article 199 of the Constitution.
5. As regards the second limb of the argument, we are not inclined to the view that resort can be had by a litigant to this Court's jurisdiction under Article 190 of the Constitution as a substitute for all that is required of the Courts/Tribunals/Organisations to accomplish within the contemplation of the law on the subject. Put differently, if the actions of the Courts/Tribunals/Organisations/below do not suffer from any taint whatsoever, this Court will not be justified in resorting to its jurisdiction under Article 190 to issue directions in aid of its process in the void.
6. No other points was raised.
7. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed and .