MUHAMMAD ANIS vs PAK GULF LEASING COMPANY LTD — 2025 CLD 1504 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD ANIS VS PAK GULF LEASING COMPANY LTD. Ss. 7(4) & 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151 & O. XLI, R.33---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration, cancellation, damages and permanent injunction---Right of party---Remedy not granted by the Court---act(s) of the Subordinate Court(s) not granting relief / right to party---Inherent/ex delicto justitiae powers of High/appellate Court---Scope---Owner of residential property, through original papers, furnished surety in a criminal case on behalf of two accused persons pursuant to their bail order, however, later he did not receive any final outcome on his application for release of surety, i.e. return of his original property papers---Then, owner received a notice from a non-banking finance leasing company ('Leasing Company') stating that the property was mortgaged to them and they intended to auction the same---Then the owner filed a civil suit for a declaration, etc., before the High Court in its Original Civil Jurisdiction, inter alia, seeking to restraint Leasing Company from auction / sale of the property but the Single Judge returned the plaint, with an observation to approach the court of proper jurisdiction---Then the owner approached the Banking Court and filed suit seeking redressal of his grievance, however, when the matter proceeded to the final arguments the Judge-Banking Court, while holding that the Banking Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, returned the plaint with the direction to file the same before the (civil) court of competent jurisdiction---Owner/appellant approached appellate/High Court---Validity---Banking Court, undoudtdly, has authority to decide its own jurisdiction as provided in S. 7(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001') being a special law; the jurisdiction of which (Banking Court) is only invoked when there is dispute between a financial institution and a customer, as defined under the Ordinance 2001---In the present case , it is an accepted position that the appellant does not fall into either category, which forms the basis of the impugned judgment and return of the plaint---Both the Courts (Civil and Banking) , at separate times, have returned the plaint to the appellant, in essence leaving the appellant non-suited ; which is contrary to the provisions of law and natural justice, i.e. ubi jus ibiremedium, meaning where there is a right, there is a remedy---Similarly , "actus curiae neminemgravabit" means an act of court should prejudice no man, both the said principles would be called into effect to the aid of the appellant to support him in present matter---Mere technicalities cannot forgo justice, nor can technicalities be allowed to operate as tyrant masters so as to frustrate genuine claims as it remains incumbent upon a court to remedy any wrong suffered by a litigant---additionally, the High /appellate Court holds inherent jurisdiction and power, the Court remains duty-bound to ensure that complete justice is done and technicalities are avoided---Such power has been granted vide statute, i.e. under S. 151 as well as O. XLI, R. 33, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---additionally, the appellate Court can also act ex delicto justiciae and supply for an omission in any procedure---The appellate Court exercises powers to make such orders to cover ostensibly impossible situations for complete dispensation of justice---The appellant has been in pursuit of his property, which has eluded him for nearly 20 years, and the matter to-date remains in limbo---The appellant is no better off today than he was 20 years ago, despite pursuing his matter before the courts of law---It would by any standard be unjust, if the appellant was not aided to conclude his claim---Thus, to serve a more reasonable and justiciable purpose, High/appellate Court, while invoking inherent powers, transferred the suit filed by appellant from the Banking Court to the relevant Civil Court holding pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction over the Property; the matter would commence at the stage of Final arguments on the basis of evidence already adduced by both the parties---appeal was disposed of accordingly.

MUHAMMAD ANIS vs PAK GULF LEASING COMPANY LTD — 2025 CLD 1504 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD