1994 PLP 939 (MLD)
SARFRAZ AHMAD BHATTI — Petitioner Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 939 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARFRAZ AHMAD BHATTI — Petitioner Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 939 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 939 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 939 (MLD) (SARFRAZ AHMAD BHATTI — Petitioner Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Anwar Sipra for Petitioner.
- Syed Fazal-ur-Rehman Gilant for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts.199 & 203-G
Exercise of
Petitioner obtained loan for construction of house from respondent Corporation and executed an agreement agreeing to terms and conditions mentioned therein-- Petitioner through Constitutional petition had challenged notice of demand issued to him by respondent-Corporation for realization of amount of loan on the ground that amount of interest included in demand being repugnant to tenets of Islam was violative of Article 2-A of the Constitution
Held it being a contractual liability which had emanated from an agreement arrived reached at between parties on their own volition High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, could not enter into such controversy
Court also had no jurisdiction in determining the validity of interest in view of Article 203 6 of the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner obtained a loan for the construction of a house from the respondent No.1 House Building Finance Corporation and executed an agreement agreeing to the terms and conditions thereto. Through this Constitutional petition exception has been taken to the notice issued to the petitioner by the respondent-Corporation for the realization of its amount. It is the case of the petitioner that he has paid the principal amount and the charge of interest is violative of Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. Further argument has been advanced that without determining the actual amount notice for the recovery has been issued and the respondents are trying to recover the same through arrest and auction of the house of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for some time. It is a contractual liability which has emanated out of an agreement reached at between the parties on their own volition as far back as in the year 1976. This Court in view of Article 203-G of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has got no jurisdiction in such like matter, particularly so when the same has emanated out of an agreement reached at between the parties on their own volition. The best course open for the petitioner is to approach the respondent-House Building Finance Corporation and ask them to furnish statement of accounts who of course would be dealing in this matter strictly within the four corners of law. However, in the exercise of my Constitutional jurisdiction I do not want to enter into this controversy. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-410/L Petition dismissed.