1994CLC273 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 25 (2)‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss. 81 & 82‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Default in payment of Bank loan‑‑ Detention‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Detention of a defaulter could be ordered and such measure has not to be adopted as the last resort; but could ‑ be a first step, depending on the option of creditor‑‑‑Aggrieved person, however, could have approached Banking Court, in the first instance‑‑‑Scope of Constitutional jurisdiction by High Court has its limits in such matters‑‑‑Petitioner (brother of defaulter) and defaulter were co‑owners in joint Khata; petitioner had liquidated his liability of loan and undertook that in .two months time liability of defaulter would also be discharged‑‑‑Bank would have option to give consideration to compassionate or humanitarian grounds invoked by the defaulter, coupled with a solemn undertaking given about payment of entire loan within a short period of two months‑‑‑Constitutional petition against order of detention of defaulter being not entertainable was dismissed in circumstances: Muhammad Shafiq for Petitioner. Abdul Latif Khan Lodhi for Respondent No.

6. Petitioner's brother, Ghulam Hussain has been detained because of his default in payment of the amount of loan that he has obtained from the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and he is sought to be set at liberty.

2. It is submitted by Bashir Ahmad petitioner that Ghulam Hussain did not make the payment on account of heavily rainfall and effect of virus on cotton crop, He was prevented from discharging his liability, owing to unavoidable circumstances, beyond his control.

3. Ghulam Hussain's liability is not disputed and it has actually been said that he is prepared to deposit the entire amount, alongwith interest, within a period of two months, after harvesting his cotton crop. It is also admitted that Bank dues are recoverable as arrears of land revenue. It is however contended that the first step should be auction of the property pledged with the bank.

4. It is not denied that even detention of a defaulter may be made and this measure has not to be adopted as the last resort; it may be the first step, depending on the option of the creditor. It is also to be borne in mind that the aggrieved person could have approached the Special Judge, Banking Court at Multan, in the first instance. He has however rushed to this Court without realizing that scope of exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court has its limits.

5. Both the brothers, Bashir Ahmad petitioner and Ghulam Hussain are co‑owners in a joint Khata, and the petitioner is said to have liquidated his liability. He too was a loanee. If he could do it, there is no reason why Ghulam Hussain, could not perform his obligations. It is therefore doubtful if his land was actually calamity‑affected. It may however, be observed that it would be open to the bank to give due consideration to the so‑called compassionate or humanitarian grounds invoked by the defaulter, coupled with a solemn undertaking given about payment of the entire dues within a short period of two months; and it is hoped that the bank people will show a soft attitude towards the defaulter. This Court however has to enforce the law, as it is and is not to be swayed by the pleas and the undertaking alluded to above. The writ petition is not entertainable and is hereby dismissed. AA./B‑96/L Petition dismissed