P L D 1991 Supreme Court 729 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.‑‑‑Petitioner a borrower/debtor has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of its Intra Court Appeal which was filed with a view to prevent the respondent/creditor to realise the amount in question. The plea taken up before the High Court was that Article 2‑A having been made the Objectives Resolution as substantive part of the Constitution, the amount of interest could not be realised from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner had narrated all the circumstances in which the loan was obtained in 1974, The petitioner made full use of it and started making re‑payment. Till 1997 it seems the entire liability under the alleged contract was not discharged. The recovery of the balance amount was sought to be made by the respondent which as stated above is intended to be prevented through the exercise of Writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitioner having failed before the learned Single Judge, its appeal also was dismissed, therefore, this petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel contended and rightly so that the scope of Article 2‑A of the Constitution needs to be examined and determined finally. This question is already before his Court in some other matters, therefore, for that purpose alone leave need not be granted in this case. When questioned: whether the petitioner is not liable under the original contract to pay the balance amount to respondent, learned counsel stated that if it were the simple interest there would not have been much objection but the compound And penal interest constitutes a very heavy amount which the petitioner is unable to pay. If the other question as noted is kept aside, inability to discharge a liability would hardly make out a case for interference either by the High Court or by this Court in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. When discussing the point that the respondent is public institution and does not have the property of its own and that it cannot function if the recoveries, like the one involved in this case, are prevented; learned counsel made a rational plea that the period of about a year during which the petitioner's industry remained nationalized should have been kept in view while imposing the penal and other interest and further that no fair opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to settle the matter out of Court ‑‑.For example, even, by surrendering the property mortgaged with the respondent. There is force in what the learned counsel has submitted but this alone is not enough for grant of leave to appeal in this case. The grievance/ suggestions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner can even now be put forward before the respondents. in cases like the present one, intervention by the Government in order to remove the hardships of either or both sides has often succeeded. It is acceptable solution to the counsel. Thus the petitioner will be well‑advised to seek the assistance of the Government instead of making effort to seek discretionary relief in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. With these remarks we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same accordingly is refused. M.B.A./M‑1504/S Leave refused