ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

H.C.A. No.273 of 2021

___________________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________________

FRESH CASE:

1. For order on CMA No.2272/2021 (Urgent).

2. For order on office objection a/w replyu as at ‘A’.

3. For order on CMA No.2273/2021 (Exemption).

4. For hearing of main case.

5. For order on CMA No.2274/2021 (Urgent).

-----------

2^nd December 2021

Mr. Ghulam Rasool Korai, Advocate for Appellant.

-*-*-*-*-*-

1. Urgency granted.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to comply with office objection before next date of hearing.

3. Exemption granted, but subject to all just exceptions.

4&5. Instant High Court Appeal has been filed against an order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, on the original side, of this Court in Suit No.595 of 2018, whereby, Chief Executive Officer of the appellant’s bank has been directed to be present in Court alongwith relevant record. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the fateful date two applications were fixed for orders, which include application (CMA No.5036/2020) filed by the appellant with the prayer to take written-statement on record, whereas, other application (CMA No.16545/2021) seeking urgency was filed by the respondent on which impugned order has been passed requiring Chief Executive Officer of the appellant’s Bank to be present alongwith relevant record, whereas, notice has been directed to be issued to the Chief Executive Officer of appellant’s bank through concerned SHO. According to the learned counsel for appellant, in a suit filed by the respondent, seeking compensation, recovery of damages and replacement of disputed car, which otherwise is misconceived, is not maintainable, as according to learned counsel, similar suit was filed before the Banking Court, which was dismissed against which an appeal was filed, which was also dismissed as not pressed, issuing direction for personal appearance of Chief Executive Officer, who has been directed to be served through concerned SHO is unwarranted and would create serious humiliation of an officer of the appellant’s Bank, who is not a party in instant proceeding. It has been contended by the learned counsel for appellant that compliance of Court’s order regarding production of relevant record will be complied with, however, requests that the impugned order to the extent that notice has been directed to be served upon Chief Executive Officer of appellant’s Bank through concerned SHO and his personal appearance in the Court may be set aside.

Contention of the learned counsel for appellant seems to be reasonable. Accordingly, instant High Court Appeal is disposed of with direction to the appellant to comply with Court’s order dated 15.11.2021, however, notice upon Chief Executive Officer of the appellant’s bank may not be served through concerned SHO, whereas, some responsible officer seized of the relevant record shall be in attendance before the learned Single Judge on the next date of hearing.

Instant High Court Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E

*Farhan/PS*