1. ' SYED ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.--- This revision application has been preferred by the applicant challenging the judgment dated 28-9-2009 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi(Central) in Civil Appeal No,91 of 2006, upholding the judgment and decree dated 21-6- 2006 passed by the learned VIth Senior Civil Judge in First Class Suit No,109 of 2003, dismissing the suit of the applicant.
2. ' The facts, in short, are that the applicant being attorney of Mst. Bilqees Fatima wife of Syed Hidayat Hussain, the owner of Bungalow No,D-69/A, Block-F, North Nazimabad, Karachi, and landlady, rented out the said bungalow in the month of July, 1984 on a monthly rent of Rs,4000/- w,e,f, 1-8-1984 and during the years 1984 to 1987, family terms developed between the parties so much so that they fell under obligations of each other as regards financial matters and that the applicant arranged Rs,40,000/- and paid. Rs,31,170/- to the marriage hall on the eve of marriage of the sister of the respondent No,2, on his request as well as paid Rs,6061/- towards decoration charge, out of his own pocket. The applicant also paid Rs,5000/- to Mst. Nighat Ali wife of the respondent No,2, on the aforesaid occasion as friendly loan.
3. ' The respondent No,2 stopped payment of rent as also the charges in respect of utility services from December, 1987, on the plea of having fallen in financial crises. Finally, in the last week of July, 1988, the respondent No,2 demanded from the applicant Rs,500,000/- as loan, and the applicant being soft hearted person and of helping nature, arranged the said amount for the respondent No,2 and paid to him on 2-8-1988, for which, the respondent No,2 for and on behalf of the respondent No,1 signed and executed an agreement with the applicant with the agreed term that the said amount of loan advanced by the applicant was refundable/payable within next fifteen days and in case of default, the same was payable with penalty of equivalent amount, thus, totalling Rs,1,000,000/- will thereby become payable at once. However, the respondent No,2, despite demand, failed to refund/repay the said amount to the applicant within the stipulated period of time, which ended on 18-8-1988, as the respondent No,2 showed his inability and promised to refund the same by 1-9-1988 but he could not make the payment even uptb such date and thereafter as well while all efforts of the applicant in that regard, went in vain.
4. ' Meanwhile, the respondent No,2 filed a Civil Suit No,184 of 1991, against the applicant, praying for an injunction restraining the applicant not to disturb the possession of the respondent No,1 in respect of the said rented bungalow, otherwise than due course of law, and in response thereto, the applicant preferred Rent Case No,368 of 1991 against the respondents seeking their ejectment from the said premises on the ground of default. The applicant also filed a Civil Suit No,849 of 1991 in the High Court for recovery of Rs,1,000,000/- under the aforesaid agreement, from the respondents, which later on stood transferred to the court of the District Judge, Karachi (Central) being vested with the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction covering the value of-the suit in hand, and where the suit was registered as Civil Suit No,109 of 2003 and ultimately, dismissed by the learned VI Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (Central) on merits by way of the judgment and decree impugned in the appeal preferred there against, in the first instance and that too, met with the same fate, by way of the judgment now impugned in this revision application with the aforesaid prayers.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record and finding no merits, dismissed the Revision Application in hand, in limine by a short order dated 2-9-2010, for the reasons to be recorded later on. The following are the reasons for the same.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has failed to prove the payment of Rs,500, 000/- not only before the court of first instance but also before the court of appeal, and as such concurrent findings of fact, there against, or as to the story of the alleged payment thereof, and that of the execution of the agreement in question etc., was held doubtful and could not be given any weight.
7. The learned counsel, has not been able to pinpoint any error or illegality, causing miscarriage of justice owing thereto, (in the matter of the said proceedings), to the satisfaction of this court.
8. Besides, the learned counsel failed to show the legitimacy of the contract, which, according to him, has taken place between the parties, and which carried the terms as stipulated, that the respondents will be liable to pay Rs,500, 000 together with another amount of Rs,500,000/- as penalty for default in payment of the actual paid amount within fifteen days next.
9. ' In my view, the agreement pertaining to the payment of loan and A repayment of the loan with penalty of like nature, is not covered by any law as the same does not match with equity or fairness rather it shows a cruel conduct and unwarranted exorbitant amount of profit against a loan, and the agreement is nothing but a posture of wrongful gain by exploitation of the situation of the plight of the alleged needy person, by the applicant party. The same also stands hit by the law and rules as to the business of dealing with lending money as loan or financial facility against profit or interest etc., which amounts to money lending business or banking etc. In nature, and the penalty referred to above, being an indirect profit, carrying no match of any justifiability thereagainst, amounts to claiming illegally a forceful interest against friendly loan, which of itself, is not fair in terms of law, equity and justice. Legally saying, an agreement or contract like the instant one, which is void in nature being contrary to law, is not open to be enforced through a court of law, being the same on such score, is bad in law.
10. ' However, the learned counsel concedes the legal position stated above, yet does insist on enforcement of the aforesaid agreement upto the original payable amount of Rs,500,000/- advanced or paid thereunder, for which, as I have already concluded that the same being a finding of fact arrived at, as properly adjudicated upon, by the two courts below including the trial Court and that of the appeal, and therefore, being concurrent findings, need no interference by this court in the matter.
11. ' Consequently, I do not find any merits in this Revision Application since, as already stated, no illegality or miscarriage of justice is apparent in the impugned judgment and therefore, the same does not warrant any interference. Hence, the same merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed in limine along with the C.M.A.617 of 2010.