Imam Din (written Reply)

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No. 479/2003 In re: Imam Din

VS.

A.D.B.P. etc.

WRITTEN REPLY/PARAWISE COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF A.D.B.P./RESPONDENTS.

Respectfully Sheweth: Preliminary Objections: 1.

That the matter in dispute in the instant writ petition pertains to a loan facility availed by the petitioner from ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK Ltd. Lodhran Branch. Section 7(4) read with section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances Ordinance, 2001, provides that no court other than the Banking Court shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any matter in between a customer and Financial Institution. Therefore, this Hon’ble Courts lacks jurisdiction to try this writ petition.

2.

That the matter involves a contractual liability in between a customer and a financial institution and such rights or liabilities are not enforceable by recourse to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Therefore, on this score also the instant writ petition is legally not maintainable. Reliance is placed on 2001 MLD 1494, 2002 CLC 1593 (a) & PLD 1962 S.C. 108 (c).

3.

That the petitioner can file a declaratory suit before the Banking Court seeking therein the ascertainment of actual principal amount disbursed to him and his two brothers as a loan under his loan case No. 250083. In view of availability of alternative proper remedy under law, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on 2001 MLD 1608.

ON FACTS: 1.

That contents of para No. 1 of writ petition as stated by the petitioner, are not correct. He has tried to conceal the actual facts before this Hon’ble Court. a)

Actual facts germane to the rightful decision of instant writ petition are that on 17.7.1998, petitioner alongwith his two brothers namely Ghulam Rasool and Mehboob Ali, jointly submitted an application for seeking a loan facility of Rs. 2 lacs for the purchase of seasonal inputs and pesticides before the Manager, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. Lodhran branch. Copy of joint application is Annex “1”.

b)

That after due verification and adopting all the legal formalities, the loan application was sanctioned by competent authority on 21.7.1998 under loan A/c No. 250083. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioners/applicants as per rule, were directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- (at the rate of 1% of total loan amount) as loan A/c fee, which they did. Sanction letter is Annex “2”.

c)

Loan Agreement was duly executed and land of the petitioner and his brothers in lieu thereof as security was pledged with the respondent Bank; and petitioner and his brothers acknowledged the receipt of loan vide document

dated

25.7.98.

Loan Agreement

acknowledgment receipt are Annexes “3 & 4”.

and

d)

That the loan amount of Rs. 1,99,920/- was posted in the joint current Account No. 7865 of all the three brothers, which was opened by them with Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. Lodhran branch on 16.7.1998. An amount of Rs. 1,99,000/- was encashed by all the three brothers through cheque No. A 871277 dated 16.7.98. Copy of cheque is Annex “5”.

e)

That the petitioner and his brothers have fully utilized the loan amount of Rs. 200,000/- and on persuasion have deposited only Rs. 29,400/- on 13.4.2000. According to agreed schedule, the repayment of loan was to be made in a single installment and the due date fixed for that purpose was 7.1.99.

f)

That the petitioner and his brothers are chronic defaulters and an amount of Rs. 2,35,827/- outstands against them as on 21.12.2002; which further increases till its realization. Certified copy of statement of account is Annex “6”.

2.

That para No. 2 as stated is not correct. Actually a loan of Rs. 1,99,920/- was disbursed to petitioner and his brothers through cheque.

3.

That para No. 3 is correct to this extent that amount of Rs. 235,827/- outstands against them as on 31.12.2002, which further increases till its realization. Notice annexed with writ petition is forged and fictitious and has been prepared by the petitioner himself just to procure some extraneous purposes.

4.

That para No. 4 is incorrect and is therefore not admitted.

5.

That para No. 5 is incorrect.

6.

That para No. 6 as stated is incorrect. However, a sum of Rs. 29,400/- was deposited by loanees on 13.4.2000, which figures in the statement of account.

7.

That para No. 7 is correct to the extent that petitioner filed W.P. No. 4295/2000 wherein an order by this Hon’ble Court

was passed according to which F.I.A. was directed to complete enquiry within one month. 8.

That para No. 8 is correct. The trial of this case in the court is yet to be commenced, but it is also pertinent to mention here that vide departmental enquiry, these alleged delinquents were exonerated and they have resumed their duties.

9.

That para No. 9 is correct.

10.

That para No. 10 as stated is not correct. Alleged notice Annex “E” is a forged document and has been illegally prepared by the petitioner in order to justify his contentions. Petitioner and his brothers are defaulters and an amount of Rs. 235,827/- as on 31.12.2002 outstands against them which is still increasing and the bank authorities are legally entitled to recover this amount from them through lawful means.

11.

That para No. 11 is incorrect.

12.

That para No. 12 is absolutely incorrect and is vehemently denied. Innocent bank officials of good repute have been exaggeratedly involved in a criminal case at the behest of petitioner. Trial is yet to be concluded. Petitioner and others are liable to pay the defaulted amount to bank.

13.

That para No. 13 is incorrect. Prayer clause is absolutely incorrect, baseless & concocted.

Instant writ petition is legally

not

maintainable, it is therefore, humbly requested that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed with costs. Humble Respondents, Dated: ________

MIAN ABDUL AZIZ NASEEM Advocate High Court, 123-District Courts, Multan.