1992 PLP 3 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Repayment of loan with interest‑‑‑Petitioner was not willing to pay interest for its being forbidden in Islam as Riba and being Haram‑‑‑Claim to charge interest by respondent‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's stand as regards nature and requirement for payment of interest though perfectly correct, yet difficulty for him was that he was not entitled to get it effectuated by resort to Constitutional jurisdiction, for he had disabled himself from setting up plea on account of subscribing to the agreement for loan‑‑‑Petitioner after having taken advantage of loan on explicit undertaking to pay interest as such, could not be heard now to say that liability for the same did not fall on him on account of its being contrary to religious convictions‑‑ ‑If petitioner did really have that much sanctity for religious injunctions, he should not have entered into the deal in question‑‑‑Petitioner could not be allowed to reprobate that which he had himself approbated at the time of his need‑‑‑Petitioner's endeavour to wriggle out of his commitment only after having all due benefits under it, did not entitle him to avail Constitutional jurisdiction. [Apprabate and reprobate]. Ch. Abdus Sattar for Petitioner. This writ petition has been maintained by Inayat Ali for a declaration being made that act of the respondent‑Bank, with regard to realizing or effecting recovery of interest on the principal amount of loan advanced to him, is without lawful authority and that the amount already paid by him be adjusted against the principal amount of loan advanced to him so as to be considered to have been paid exclusively towards the return of principal amount of loan. It is the case of the petitioner himself that he had applied for grant of a loan to him by Liaqatpur Branch of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and he secured a sum of Rs.1,11,400 for the purchase of one tractor and one trolly, steel‑body double‑wheel. He claims to have paid a total of Rs.53,485.60 and the balance out of the principal amount still payable by him is Rs.58,014.40 but the Bank is insisting upon payment of interest at the rate of 11% per annum which the petitioner, however, does not want to pay for the reason of its being forbidden in Islam as Riba and being Haram.

2. No doubt, stand of the petitioner as regards the nature and the requirement for payment of interest is perfectly correct and I wholeheartedly agree with him but the difficulty for him is that he is not entitled to get it effectuated by resort to writ jurisdiction because he has disabled himself from setting up such a plea on account of admittedly subscribing to the agreement for loan (pro forma as Annexure `A' herewith) which contains the undertaking to pay interest at the agreed rate of 11% per annum. After having. taken advantage on the basis of explicit undertaking to pay the interest as such, he cannot be heard to now say that liability for the same does not befall him on account of its being contrary to his religious convictions. Commandments relating to interest are not new and they have been there since thousands of years. If the petitioner did really have that sanctity for the religious injunctions then he may not have entered into the deal in question. He cannot be now allowed to reprobate that which he had himself approbated at the time of his need. Since he is endeavoring to wriggle out of his commitment only after having reaped all the due benefits under it, therefore, discretionary jurisdiction does not deserve being extended to him for such an object.

3. For the aforestated reasons, this writ petition should fail. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine. A.A./I‑2/L Petition dismissed.