Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---- ----S. 27---Finality of Banking Court decree---Scope---Property allegedly belonging to petitioner was mortgaged with Zari Taraqiati Bank by respondent No.3 after alleged transfer in his favour through fake power of attorney---On default in repayment of loan obtained for tube-well, Banking Court decreed bank’s suit, property was attached and sold/executed for satisfaction of decree---Such decree having attained finality could not be revised, reviewed, called in question or indirectly set aside by another Court or forum in view of bar contained in S.27, FIO, 2001. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---- ----S. 27---Civil Court decree and banking decree---Conflict---Effect---Petitioner claimed ownership and possession on strength of civil Court decree and sought cancellation of mutation attested in favour of bank after execution of Banking Court decree---High Court held that property sold in execution of Banking Court decree could not be restored through civil Court decree due statutory finality attached to Banking Court proceedings. (c) Banking Court---- ----Execution of banking decree---Mutation in favour of bank---Validity---Loan amount was not satisfied through mortgaged property, whereafter bank moved application and property was attached and decree executed through order of Senior Civil Judge, resulting in mutation No.2512 dated 28.12.2004 in favour of Zari Taraqiati Bank---High Court found no illegality or irregularity in findings of Banking Court refusing to undo such proceedings. (d) Civil revision---- ----Application before Banking Court for setting aside decree/orders and cancellation of mutation---Return of application for presentation before civil Court---Challenge---Petitioner’s application before Banking Court sought setting aside of judgment/order dated 23.05.1998, auction notice/order dated 10.10.2005 and cancellation of mutation No.2512---Banking Court returned application with direction to present it before civil Court---High Court held petitioner could not obtain restoration of property through civil Court decree and proper course was to approach competent forum under relevant law. (e) Fraudulent transfer---- ----Fake power of attorney---Mortgage of property to bank---Remedy of true owner---Where petitioner alleged that her property had been fraudulently transferred by respondent No.3 in his own name through fake power of attorney and then mortgaged to bank, such grievance could not defeat finality of Banking Court decree in collateral proceedings---Petitioner could seek redress before competent forum under applicable law. (f) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---- ----Banking decree---Bar against collateral attack---Proceedings, judgment, decree, sentence or order of Banking Court, and legality or propriety of anything done or intended to be done by Banking Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Ordinance, cannot be called into question except as provided under the Ordinance---Collateral challenge through civil proceedings was barred. Cited Case: • 1997 CLC Karachi 1342 (g) Civil revision---- ----Concurrent/factual findings of Banking Court---Interference---No illegality or irregularity was pointed out in findings rendered by learned Judge Banking Court---Civil revision was bereft of merit and liable to dismissal. Disposition: Civil Revision Petition No.387-B of 2012 was dismissed; order of Banking Court dated 11.10.2012 was maintained; petitioner was left to approach competent forum under relevant law for redressal of her grievance, if so advised.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.