AL-MAKKAH PRESS (PVT.) LTD. vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED Ss

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

AL-MAKKAH PRESS (PVT.) LTD. VS STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED Ss. 9(a) & 19---Suit for recovery of finance---Execution proceedings---Valuation of suit---Pecuniary jurisdiction of Banking Court---Determination---Change in valuation---Effect---Dispute had arisen due to two different views taken by Judges in Chambers of High Court when one execution proceeding was kept pending before High Court despite the fact that amount decreed was less than Rs.100 million, whereas in another case reliance was placed on case titled Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited v. Faran Maiz Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (EFA No.1059/2016) and execution proceeding was sent to Banking Court---Held, that plaintiff is competent to fix value of suit for recovery under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---If Banking Court disagrees with the value fixed by plaintiff, it determines and fixes the value of suit as per provisions of Suits Valuation Act, 1887 after holding appropriate inquiry and collecting material---After such determination of value, the matter is liable to be adjudicated by Court of competent jurisdiction---Pecuniary jurisdiction should be ascertained from the value assessed by plaintiff in the plaint and if Court alters the value in appeal etc., in that eventuality pecuniary jurisdiction remains the same as mentioned in plaint---High Court, as a Banking Court, has jurisdiction to execute judgment and decree passed by it, irrespective of the quantum of amount so decreed---Full Bench of High Court set aside the order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court in which execution was sent to Banking Court for further proceedings---Furthermore, the judgment passed by Division Bench of High Court in E.F.A No.1059/2016 titled as Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited v. Faran Maiz Industries (Pvt.) Limited [relied upon by one of the Judge in Chambers of High Court, while sending execution to Banking Court for proceedings], was declared to be passed in violation of S. 19 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, as well as settled principle of law and was a judgment per incuriam---Decrees passed by High Court under Banking jurisdiction were liable to be exclusively executed by High Court itself---Question was answered accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 160 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AL-MAKKAH PRESS (PVT.) LTD. VS STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED Ss. 9(a) & 19---Suit for recovery of finance---Execution proceedings---Valuation of suit---Pecuniary jurisdiction of Banking Court---Determination---Change in valuation---Effect---Dispute had arisen due to two different views taken by Judges in Chambers of High Court when one execution proceeding was kept pending before High Court despite the fact that amount decreed was less than Rs.100 million, whereas in another case reliance was placed on case titled Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited v. Faran Maiz Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (EFA No.1059/2016) and execution proceedings were sent to Banking Court---Held, that suit proceedings, under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 stand converted into execution by operation of law, upon pronouncement of judgment and decree---Court which pronounces the judgment is obligated to act and exercise jurisdiction to execute the decree, without the necessity of re-visiting or re-determining its own pecuniary jurisdiction in the context of quantum of an adjudicated claim / decreed amount---Legislature, in its wisdom, has rightly absolved the Court executing decree to re-visit or re-determine its pecuniary jurisdiction while giving effect to decree under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Full Bench of High Court affirmed the order in which execution proceeding was retained in High Court and the order in which execution was sent to Banking Court for proceedings was set aside---Full Bench of High Court declared judgment passed in case of Faran Maiz Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (E.F.A. 1059 / 2016) contrary to law, hence, per-incuriam---Reference was decided accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 160 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AL-MAKKAH PRESS (PVT.) LTD. VS STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED Vol. I, Ch. 3---Value of suit---Determination---Value of suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, under Chapt. 3 of Vol. I of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, is the value mentioned in plaint by plaintiff---No specific valuation of suit is mentioned in Suits Valuation Act, 1887, thus, fixing appropriate value of suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is left at the discretion of plaintiff---Ordinarily on the basis of value mentioned in plaint, pecuniary jurisdiction of Court is presumed to be the same, however, if Court modifies value of suit then the changed value is considered as value of the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court.

AL-MAKKAH PRESS (PVT.) LTD. vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED Ss — 2025 CLD 160 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD