1995 PLP 950 (CLC)
ABDUL HAMID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 950 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Saeed Awan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 950 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 950 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmed Saeed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 950 (CLC) (ABDUL HAMID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Abbas for Petitioner. .
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑OXXXVII, R. 2 & S. 34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑ Failure to avoid alternate remedy‑‑‑Effects‑‑‑Decree for recovery of loan by Special Banking Court‑‑‑Petitioner seeking direction of High Court to Bank Officials not to recover interest amount upon loan‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner had not availed other remedies available to him against the judgment in question‑‑ Petitioner having secured loan in question, under written agreement was bound by the terms of such agreement‑‑‑Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances. Muhammad Mumtaz Masaud v. House Building Finance Corporation 1994 SCMR 2287 fol.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner through this writ petition has sought issuance of direction to respondents not to recover the interest amount upon the loan.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner on 9‑11‑1978 received a loan of Rs.1,98,000 from respondent No. 3 as cash credit loan. He returned the loan to the extent of Rs.1,94,000 by 4‑5‑1980 to respondent No.
3. The respondents filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.63,635 with interest by the sale of mortgaged property in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Wazirabad which was decided on 20‑6‑1985 in favour of 'respondents and against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's business went into loss continuously and as such he closed the business. Further, he referred to the statement of respondent No. 3 recorded in the civil suit and tried to prove mala fide against the petitioner. Learned counsel stressed that he had paid all the borrowed amount but for the recovery of interest and unfair expenses civil suit was filed by the respondents. According to him, the recovery of interest on the borrowed amount is prohibited being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and as such the petitioner is not required to pay interest on the loan secured by him much less the compound interest.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. Firstly, the petitioner has not availed the other remedies available to him against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge. Secondly, it has been held by Their Lordships by the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Mumtaz Masaud v. House Building Finance Corporation (1994 SCMR 2287) that petitioner having secured loan in question under written agreement were bound by the terms of agreement. As the petitioners, received the loan under written agreement, he is bound by the terms of the said agreement. I, therefore, find no force in this petition which stands dismissed in limine. AA./A‑745/L Petition dismissed.