SHEIKH MUHAMMAD USMAN versus JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.1
In Article 22 (6) and the Preamble to Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court Object of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, the defendant sought to revoke the banking court order under which the defendant An interlocutory petition was filed by Ali. The rehabilitation case, excluded, which is behind the Financial Institutions (Restoration of Financial Assistance) Ordinance 2001, is to provide faster measures for financial recovery of financial institutions and financial recovery of financial institutions. Rehabilitation of the Aid), 2001 was an effective law and to improve and facilitate pre-existing treatment for wrongdoing and injury, as well as to remove defects, errors and omissions under section 22 (6) of the ordinance. Reform laws were enacted, where this law did not grant an appeal against an order. , Then it cannot be challenged by a constitutional petition because any such allowance will amount to disregard of the provisions of law where a law is excluded from the right of appeal, It cannot be ignored by presenting it in the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction if it is that there is no room for doubt about its intention. Legislation, then the intention of the legislature, must be put into practice and not even open to judicial scrutiny by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction without any jurisdiction or illegal proceedings. What could be done, the constitutional petition, was dismissed as unenforceable.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
