PLD 1994 Lahore 23 (PLP)
DABIR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
| Citation | PLD 1994 Lahore 23 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Mian Ghulam Ahmad J |
| Parties | DABIR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in PLD 1994 Lahore 23 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case PLD 1994 Lahore 23 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mian Ghulam Ahmad J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: PLD 1994 Lahore 23 (PLP) (DABIR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gulfam Akhtar Awan for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Demand of payment of interest accrued on principal amount advanced as loan to petitioner‑‑ Petitioner questioning his liability to pay such interest‑‑‑Agreement under which loan had been obtained by petitioner from respondent (Bank) carried clear stipulation with regard to his liability in question‑‑‑Petitioner should have refused to avail of the facility with condition relating to payment of interest attached thereto‑‑‑Petitioner having got loan and made use of the huge Amount on, the express understanding that he would also be liable to make payment of interest etc. to respondent‑Bank could not now turn round to say that such stipulation was in any way illegal or un‑Islamic‑‑‑Petitioner, .thus, could not be permitted to take benefit of his own act, he was bound by express terms of agreement, to which he was a party.
Judgment & Decree
The Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan is pressing its demand to payment of interest/profit accruable on the principal amount advanced as loan to the petitioner, who questions his liability, relying on the well‑known ruling of the Federal Shariat Court. The matter is however undeniably sub judice in the Supreme Court, and cannot be said to have finally been clinched, speaking in judicial terms.
2. The agreement, under which the loan had been obtained by the petitioner from the A.D.B.P., carried a clear stipulation with regard to his liability in question. He should have refused to avail of the facility, with the condition in question attached to it. He got the loan and made use of the huge amount on the express understanding that he would also be liable to make payment of interest, rests, etc. He cannot now turn, round and say that this stipulation was in any way illegal or un‑Islamic. He cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own act and is bound by the express terms of the agreement, to which he was a party. Writ petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed in limine. AA./D‑25/L Petition dismissed