Find a Lawyer

CENTRAL COTTON MILLS LIMITED versus ATLAS BOT LEASE CO. LIMITED

Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 Section 9 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Sections 12 (2) and AXXIII, R3 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) were settled between the parties in the suit for recovery of specific amount. THO XXIII, R 3, the defendants of the CPC then filed an application against such agreement under section 12 (2), CPC but the same was filed under section 12 (2). The plaintiff's constitutional petition against dismissal of the petition was dismissed, the CPC also reasonably dismissed. The order passed by the High Court rejecting the constitutional application was on the basis that the appeal of the section 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, was available to the defendants, as it was available to the defendants, without seeking such treatment. Could not resort to jurisdiction. The order passed on the basis of the agreement cannot be questioned in any proceeding except under section 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. The decree passed on the basis of the agreement cannot be held in the constitutional jurisdiction that the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be granted if there is any other appropriate or alternative remedy in the special law. And even if the matter was considered from the angle of enforcement of the Civil Code of Conduct, 1908, a revision petition could still be filed against the order, in which there was a defect in the order passed by the High Court or Legal error not found, leave for appeal. The circumstances were denied famous high court advocate from Shankiari lawyer