1994 PLP 717 (MLD)
HAMID ULLAH SHAH — Appellant Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 717 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAMID ULLAH SHAH — Appellant Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Respondent |
| Primary Law | House Building Finance Corporation Act (XVIII of 1952) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 717 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: House Building Finance Corporation Act (XVIII of 1952) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 717 (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 717 (MLD) (HAMID ULLAH SHAH — Appellant Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Hanif Bokhari for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.30(10)
Interest on principal amount
Suit for recovery of amount of loan filed by Corporation against borrower was decreed by Court for principal amount of loan as also interest thereon
Borrower had urged that Federal Shariat Court having declared provisions of Act relating to recovery of interest on loan advanced by Corporation, repugnant to Injunctions of Islam, no amount was recoverable from him on account of interest
Appeal having been filed before Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court against said judgment of Federal Shariat Court, operation of same would stand suspended
Borrower had submitted that his case should be kept pending till decision of case by Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court
Case of borrower could not be kept pending for awaiting decision of some other case and remedy of borrower, if any, was to approach Federal Shariat Court or Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court for obtaining stay order against recovery of interest.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal under section 30(10) of House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952 is directed against order, dated 11-3-1992 passed by learned District Judge, Jhang through which it has been decided that an amount of Rs.1,92,833.26 is outstanding against the appellant on account of loan which he obtained from the respondent. It has also been held that the said amount includes the principal amount which was taken by the appellant as loan was also the interest which is payable by the appellant on the said amount.
2. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Federal Shariat Court has declared the relevant provisions of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952 relating to recovery of interest on the loan advanced by the Corporation repugnant to the injunctions of Islam therefore, no amount is recoverable from the appellant on account of interest as such the same was not due from him.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeal has been filed before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court against the said judgment of Federal Shariat Court as such the operation of the same by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution stands suspended.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this appeal may be kept pending till the decision of the case by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. Since there is no dispute about the quantum of the amount due to the appellant on account of the principal amount of loan as also the interest therefore the order under appeal does not suffer from any illegality. The appeal cannot be kept pending for awaiting the decision of some other case and the remedy of the appellant, if any, is to approach the Federal Shariat Court or the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court for obtaining stay order against the recovery if he so likes.
5. It may however be observed that in case the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court upholds the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, the same would be applicable to the appellant as per its terms and the appellant may claim the refund of the amount as the case may be.
6. The appeal has no merits which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./H-66/L Appeal dismissed.