how to recall decretal deposit order

Introduction
Case Background
Relevant Legal Provisions
Key Legal Issue
Parties’ Arguments
Judgment Summary
Legal Significance in Pakistan
Advocate Muhammad Amin’s Role
Conclusion

1. Introduction

This article covers a key 2023 decision reported in 2024 CLD 25 by the Sindh High Court, Pakistan, where an unlawful order directing deposit of the decretal amount was passed in a banking appeal without meeting legal requirements. The court later reviewed and recalled the order, reinforcing procedural safeguards in appeals under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (FIO).

2. Case Background

Appellant Zafar Hassan Khan filed an appeal against a decree in favor of Habib Bank Limited (HBL). On 18 May 2023, the court ordered him to deposit the full decretal amount, even though:

The appeal was not admitted.
No stay was sought or granted.
His lawyer was absent in another courtroom.

The appellant promptly filed a review application to recall the order.

3. Relevant Legal Provisions

Section 22(3) of FIO 2001
Section 27 of FIO 2001
Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC (Review powers)

Section 22(3) requires:

The appeal must be admitted first.
Any order for deposit must be reasoned.
Deposit is only relevant where a stay is being granted.

4. Key Legal Issue

Can a High Court in Pakistan direct the appellant to deposit the decretal amount in a banking appeal without admitting the appeal or granting a stay?

5. Parties’ Arguments

Appellant:

The court passed an unlawful order.
Legal conditions of Section 22(3) FIO were not met.
There was no stay application.
The order lacked reasoning.

Respondent (HBL):

Claimed the order was final and passed as a Banking Court.
Argued that Section 27 barred any review.

6. Judgment Summary

The Sindh High Court ruled that:

Section 22(3) permits a deposit order only after admission and through a reasoned order.
The High Court, while hearing appeals under Section 22, does not act as a Banking Court under Section 2(b).
Review was valid due to misconception of law.
The order of 18 May 2023 was unlawful and recalled.

7. Legal Significance in Pakistan

This judgment:

Clarifies appellate procedure under FIO 2001.
Confirms that High Courts cannot act arbitrarily while exercising appellate jurisdiction.
Reinforces that review is available under CPC where the court’s own error causes injustice.
Protects parties from procedural unfairness in financial litigation.

Important precedents relied upon:

M.A. Kareem Iqbal v. Banking Court, 2003 CLD 1447
Askari Bank v. DCD Services Ltd., 2016 CLD 449

8. Advocate Muhammad Amin’s Role

Advocate Muhammad Amin, a seasoned lawyer practicing in Peshawar, regularly advises clients on financial and banking disputes in Pakistan. He emphasizes:

The proper use of appellate remedies under the FIO.
Filing review applications when judicial errors occur.
Educating litigants about their procedural rights in complex banking cases.

For legal assistance, you can contact him at:
📍 Office No. 14, Zeb Plaza, University Road, Tahkal Payan, Peshawar
📞 0313 9708019

9. Conclusion

This case reaffirms that justice in Pakistan must follow due process. High Courts cannot issue directions without following statutory conditions under FIO 2001. The decision in 2024 CLD 25 promotes judicial accountability and protects litigants from procedural injustice.