P L D 2008 Supreme Court 326 (PLP)

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J.

This petition is directed against order dated 13-12-2007 passed by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Writ Petition No.11932 of 2007 filed by petitioner was dismissed and order of the learned Tribunal dated 7-12-2007 was maintained.

2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition are that petitioner filed nomination papers before respondent No.2, the Returning Officer for Provincial Assembly of Punjab PP-71 which were rejected on 3-12-2007. Feeling aggrieved, he filed an appeal under section 14(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1976 before Election Tribunal, Punjab which was also dismissed vide order dated 7-12-2007. Feeling still not satisfied he filed Writ Petition No.11932 of 2007 before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore which too was dismissed vide impugned order.

3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that learned High Court has misinterpreted provision of sections 12 of the Representation of People Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1976'). According to him under section 12(2)(c) of the Act of 1976, the candidate has to give apart from other declarations that no loans for an amount of two million rupees or more obtained from any bank, financial institution, cooperative society or corporate body in his own name or in the name of his spouse or any of his dependents or any business concern mainly owned by him or the aforesaid stands unpaid for more than one year from the due date, or has got such loan written off. He urged that decree was passed against Messrs Ahmad Straw Board Company wherein the share of petitioner was only Rs.13,40,650 which was paid and he ceased to be its director with effect from 30-6-2007. He further contended that petitioner stood only as guarantee for the financial obtained by the said company and there was no default on his part.

5. There is no denial to the fact that in the column regarding liabilities in the nomination papers filed by petitioner neither any liability has been shown nor decree for recovery of Rs.69,51,598 passed on 15-5-2007 against petitioner and. others has been mentioned. Though at the time of filing of nomination papers execution application for the said decree filed by respondent No.4 (Crescent Leasing (Cres Lease) Leasing Corporation was pending. Thus requirements of section 12(2) of the Act, 1976 have not been complied with by the petitioner, as such his nomination papers were rightly rejected by all the forums below. Moreover, the liability of guarantor/surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract as envisaged in section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872. They are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount to the creditor. A guarantor cannot shirk from the liabilities incurred by him. The learned counsel has failed to point out any question of law of public importance warranting interference by this Court in the impugned judgment, which is maintained accordingly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. S.A.K./K-1/S Leave refused.