1997 PLP 1089 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1996. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the, judgment dated 22‑2‑1995 of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in Writ Petition No. 1400 of 1994, filed by the respondent impugning the claim of the petitioner bank for the recovery of the amount of interest on the principal amount of loan, allowing the same.

2. The brief facts are that on 31‑8‑1989 a loan of Rs.4,79,000 was sanctioned by the petitioner bank for installation of a poultry farm by the respondent at Village Bucha, Tehsil Gujjar Khan, District Rawalpindi, which was to be released in instalments. The first instalment of Rs.2,70,000 was released by the petitioner bank, out of which the respondent was required to construct the proposed shed etc. and the balance of the sanctioned loan amount viz. Rs.2;09,000 was to be released upon fulfilment of the above condition. It seems that the respondent did not milise the aforementioned first instalment of Rs.2,70,000; consequently, the balance amount of Rs.2,09,000 was not released. The petitioner bank demanded interest on the released amount. The respondent filed aforesaid writ petition in the High Court praying for the ' following reliefs:‑‑ "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be accepted and the respondents be restrained from recovering any interest alleged to have been accrued on the principal amount, in any manner whatsoever, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that till the final decision of the writ petition, the respondents may also be restrained from recovering any amount from the petitioner, illegally and forcibly. Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case, be also granted to the petitioner." The above writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of Lahore High Court ac Rawalpindi Bench through the aforementioned judgment dated 22‑2‑1995 in the following terms:‑‑ "

7. With the aforesaid background it is appropriate that the land which was mortgaged with the respondent Bank authorities for securing the loan amount .be redeemed and document of title be returned to the petitioner after the execution of necessary deed of redemption. The respondents are directed to do the needful in the matter and execute the 'redemption deed within a period of fifteen days and return the document of title to the petitioner enabling her to put off the encumbrance of mortgage. The writ petition is accepted in the terms stated above with no order as to costs." The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. In support of the above petition Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge in Chambers was not justified in pressing into service his Constitutional jurisdiction in respect of a contractual matter and the above relief granted was not warranted by law. Reliance has been placed by him on the case of Muhammad Mumtaz Masud and 2 others v. House Building Finance Corporation and 2 others (1994 SCMR 2287).

4. We are inclined to grant leave to consider, whether the impugned judgment is in consonance with law. Leave is, accordingly, granted. The interim order dated 14‑3‑1995 shall continue in the meantime. A.A/A‑1406/S Leave granted.