Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 3066 2003 SLD 3066 2003 CLD 1581
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No.582 of 2001, decision dated: 3rd April, 2003.
NASIRUL MULK AND IJAZ UL HASSAN, JJ
Sheikh Gulzar Ali & Company and 2 others v. Special Judge, Special Court of Banking for Sindh at Karachi High Court and another 1989 CLC 1958 ref. Pir Muhammad for Petitioner. Syed Qalbe Abbas for
Respondent.

Mst. ALLAH RAKHI er

VS

. GENERAL MANAGER, HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE Karachi High Court and another --Respondents

Law:

Section:

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) ---S. 21 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 Suit for recovery of amount or outstanding loan and dues against the petitioner Constitutional petition by the petitioner seeking that House Building Finance corporation be restrained from making any recovery of the outstanding dues under the decree from the petitioner without extending her the benefit of package announced by the prime Minister dated 23 7 1997 Maintainability Remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner under S.21, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 which she had not availed Petitioner had taken financial assistance from the Corporation in the year 1976 and had not discharged her liability and entire loan was outstanding against her Such conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitled her from invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court Constitutional petition could not be invoked where consent decrees could be passed ¬Principles. Article 199 of the Constitution provided that no petition would lie if any other adequate, alternate remedy, was available. Remedy of appeal, was already available which had not been resorted to by the petitioner. The High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction could not take over the function of machinery provided by the statute. The course open to the petitioner was to have instituted appeal against the decree instead of invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Exercise of writ jurisdiction was discretionary which was to be used in good faith having a look to all the attending circumstances and relevant factors of the case. The same was to be used in just, fair and reasonable ways. The financial assistance was provided to the petitioner in the year 1976 for construction of a house on certain terms and conditions. The petitioner had not discharged her liability. The entire loan was outstanding against her. Above conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitled her from invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Even otherwise a writ petition was not maintainable where consent decrees were passed.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492