Order Sheet

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI

High Court Appeal No.393 of 2018

Date	Order with Signature of Judge

Fresh case :

1. For order on C.M.A.No.3264/18 (Urgent).

2. For order on office objection a/w reply as at “A”.

3. For order on C.M.A.No.3265/18 (Exemption).

4. For order on C.M.A.No.3266/18 (Stay) :

5. For hearing of main case :

12^thNovember 2018

Syed Danish Ghazi, advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Imadul Hassan, respondent in person.

**********

1. Urgency granted.

2 to 5. Respondent, who is appearing in person, waives notice of this appeal. Suit No.563/2007 was filed by the appellant against the respondent at the original side of this Court for recovery of Rs.9,196,729.00, which is still pending. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent, who was an employee of the appellant at the relevant time, obtained a ‘Staff House Advance’ loan from the appellant to the tune of Rs.9.000 million and in consideration thereof mortgaged an immoveable property with the appellant. Since the respondent did not settle his liability, the above Suit was filed wherein a mortgage decree was sought by the appellant. In the said Suit, the respondent filed CMA No.12272/2017 under Order XXIV Rule 1 CPC praying that he may be allowed to redeem the mortgaged property by selling the same and depositing 100% amount claimed by the appellant. The said application has been allowed by the learned single Judge through the impugned order dated 01.11.2018.

It is an admitted position that the loan advanced by the appellant to the respondent was based on markup and both the parties had entered into a finance agreement containing certain terms and conditions. It is also an admitted position that the appellant is a financial institution. In view of the above the questions, (a) whether or not finance granted to an employee of a financial institution would change the nature of the transaction which otherwise falls within the definition of ‘finance’ under the above Ordinance ; and, (b) whether the Suit should have been filed at the original side of this Court or in the banking jurisdiction under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, ought to have been decided in the Suit before proceeding further. The respondent as well as learned counsel for the appellant agree that the impugned order be suspended till the question of jurisdiction is decided in the Suit. They state that the matter is at the stage of final arguments and is now fixed on 22.11.2018.

With the consent of the parties, it is hereby ordered that the question of jurisdiction in the above terms shall be decided in the Suit before proceeding further and till the final decision on such issue, operation of the impugned order shall remain suspended. By consent, this appeal and listed application are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

J U D G E

*HCA 393-18 (Amjad)/12.11.2018/Short Orders DB/Court Work/E*