' KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J.----This writ petition shall decide the issue of harassment by S.M.E. Bank, Recovery Officer, who is statedly illegally and against his power confined the petitioner to jail for 40 days ignoring the fact that he was not the originally borrower and not even a guarantor.
2. The brief facts of the case are that son of the petitioner namely Raja Muhammad Shahzad borrowed Rs,1,50,000 in which this petitioner was only statedly a witness to the documents of loan.
The borrower son Raja Muhammad Shahzad could not fulfil the terms of loan facility and became a defaulter. The respondent started harassing this petitioner being father of the borrower. The petitioner was sent to jail in civil prison Adyala where he remained for about 40 days which is maximum punishment for such default as per law: However, the respondent bank has still not stopped recovery proceedings against this petitioner and are being harassing him I A continuously.
3. This writ petition was filed before this Court on 9-10-2007. The respondent was directed to appear in person before this Court along with record on 16-1-2008 and was also directed not to proceed with the coercive measures. Later, on 16-1-2008 the Manager was present in the Court with record and at the request of both the parties, the same was adjourned for 12-2-2008. On 12-2-2008 again Mumtaz Hussain, Officer Grade One of the respondent bank showed appearance and on his request short adjournment was allowed. Nobody from the respondent side has shown appearance today while learned A.A.-G on Court's call has provided assistance for deciding this case.
4. On Court query that in this case the petitioner is not borrower hence how he has been sent to jail, he conceded that this appears to be a case of high handedness on the part of the bank representative. Moreover, he has already been granted the maximum punishment. In this regard the judgment which can be relied upon is as reported "Muhammad Riaz v. District Collector, Okara and 3 others" re: PLD 1997 Lahore 980. The aforementioned judgment says that the maximum detention in the case like this being 40 days, no further warrants can be issued to the said person. It was also pointed out that the respondent has failed to produce the detail of actual outstanding amount in the absence of which no proceedings could have been initiated.
5. The case is to be seen from another angel. The collection of such arrears is always through Land Revenue Act which provides that if the original person is available the father should not be harassed for recovery. It is only if the whereabouts of the borrower are not known and the lender is unable to recover his arrears even after using all the legal methods that the guarantor can be penalized. Reference in this regard can be made in the case of "Abdul Latif v. Manager Small Business Finance Corporation and others" re: 2003 YLR 1052.
6. Unfortunately because of absence of the respondent today certain facts cannot be verified.
However, since the petitioner has already shouldered his responsibility being father of the borrower in terms of jail of 40 days, he cannot be further punished or harassed. He has admitted before us that he had c signed certain documents which he claims that he being an illiterate person is not aware as to what was the actual status of the said plain papers. However, even if he was a guarantor, in the presence of the original borrower the entire responsibility should not have been thrown on his shoulders for being father. In any case, since he has already had his side of the punishment of being in Adyala jail for 40 days, it is directed that he should not be further harassed by the respondents.
7. This however does not mean that the respondent S.M.E. Bank cannot recover the amount from the main borrower for which the petitioner shall cooperate by informing the address and whereabouts of the same.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.