2019 PLP 643 (YLR)
Syed SHAFQAT HUSSAIN SHAH — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 643 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, J |
| Parties | Syed SHAFQAT HUSSAIN SHAH — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 643 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 643 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 643 (YLR) (Syed SHAFQAT HUSSAIN SHAH — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Almani and Jam Zeeshan for Appellants.
- Shabbir Shah, Additional Advocate General for Respondents.
- Learned Addl. Advocate General, on Court notice, submits that since the decree has not reached finality, it cannot be said that the appellant is a loan defaulter.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 62 & 63
Nomination papers, rejection of
Candidate alleged to be a Bank defaulter
Scope
Nomination papers of candidate were rejected by Returning Officer on the basis that he was a bank defaulter
Plea of candidate was that since no decree had been passed against him, it could not be said that he was a defaulter
Candidate could not be conclusively declared to be a defaulter until and unless a decree or execution order had been made against him in respect of such outstanding amount
Candidate was allowed to contest election accordingly. 2010 CLC 165 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, J.
Appellant has challenged the order dated 19.06.2018 of the Returning Officer in respect of PS-75 Sujawal-I, whereby his nomination papers were rejected largely on account of the fact that the appellant was a bank defaulter. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not a bank loan defaulter and that he has filed a civil suit bearing No.67/2015 seeking leave to defend in respect of money, which is outstanding against him by Faysal Bank Limited. Both the Law Officers appearing on behalf of the State Bank of Pakistan and ECP respectively are of the view that the appellant is a bank defaulter largely based on a report provided by the State Bank of Pakistan. Learned Addl. Advocate General, on Court notice, submits that since the decree has not reached finality, it cannot be said that the appellant is a loan defaulter. I have heard the parties, scanned the record and considered the relevant law. In my view, a person cannot be conclusively declared to be a defaulter until and unless a decree or execution order has been made against him in respect of such outstanding amount. In this case, the appellant has been granted leave to defend in the recovery suit which has been filed against him by the creditor bank. As such the fate of the amount which he owes to the bank, if any, is still yet to be decided. Under these circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate that the appellant be declared as a defaulter and be disqualified from contesting the election. In this respect reliance is placed on 2010 CLC
165. Accordingly, the order of the Returning Officer is set-aside. The instant appeal is allowed in the above terms and the appellant is allowed to contest the election 2018. SA/S-65/Sindh Appeal allowed.