SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ DOGAR, J.---By filing the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:- "On the accumulative facts and circumstances narrated above, it is most respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be graced with acceptance and the respondent No.1 be specifically directed to decide the pending application of the petitioner dated 07.5.2020 with a further direction to release the amount of the petitioner with held by the respondent authorities without any lawful authority , in the supreme interest of justice, equity and fair play .
Any other relief to which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice may also be granted to the petitioner ."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with her husband maintains a joint account at Bank Alfalah Limited/respondent No.4, that the husband of the petitioner died on 26.4.2020; that sole grievance of the petitioner is that, after the demise of her husband, the petitioner opened manua l account and respondent No. 1 informed her that in case of the death of joint account holder the credit balance in the joint account will be payable to the surviving account holder by allowing one time transaction that the petitioner in the said state of affairs, opened new account and through one time transaction an amount of Rs. 65 millio n was got transferred from joint account to her account; that the account of the petitioner was blocked by respondent No.4 without any legal justification.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner , legal advisor on behalf of Bank and perused the record.
4. In compliance of this Court's order dated 18.6.2020, respondent No.4 has entered appearance along with the record and frankly concedes that there is no law with respect to the seizer/blockage of the account by the Bank except their SOPs to seize that account if there is any dispute of the account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the letter issued by Muhammad Irshad Branch Operations Manager GPA Nos.3461, 183-A Sarwar Shaheed Road, Sahiwal, which clearly reveals that "on 29.4.2020 regarding the account maintained at our branch with titled as "ASIF KHAN LODHI/A YSHA ASIF " with operating instructions as "EITHER OR SUR VIVORS". On 25th of April (Saturday) Mr. Asif Khan Lodhi has died. On 29th April of 2020 The survivor Miss Ayesha came to our !'ranch (first half hours) and opened her new account with all formalities and transferred the remaining amount of joint account in her newly opened account. The branch performed his activity according to bank Policy also with LAD opinion with single entry without any dispute." This letter has further revealed that on the same day in the second hours an application was made by Javed Khan Lodhi to seize the account as this is disputed amount with "exact figure" i.e. Rs. 65,198,269.58. This Court has observed that the exact amount of joint account of deceased Asif Khan Lodhi/A yesha Asif cannot become into the knowledge of Javed Khan Lodhi brother of deceased Asif Khan Lodhi/account holder , except with the connivance of bank staff, which clearly reflected the mala fide on the part of the Bank that amount came in the knowledge of the brother who has otherwise no access of the account of deceased as well as petitioner's husband.
5. It has also been noticed by this Court that a day before that an application was received by Bank and thereafter on the next day when the account was opened in the name of the petitioner in the second hours of the day an application was received without any due process of law i.e. filing of suit before the competent court with respect to the disputed amount. Only succession certification, titled by Javed Khan Lodhi, which has been produced before this Court by the Bank wherein only names of daughters of petitioner are mentioned without having their signatures.
6.This Court in the case of Shafique Ahmed v. Public-at Large and 4 others (2014 YLR 465), has already observed that "Objector , in the present case, although was the real brother of the deceased, however , he was considered a stranger in the proceedings for grant of succession certificate to the legal heirs of the deceased and would have no locus standi to join the proceedings since succession proceedings were limited in nature to the extent of determination of the rights' of legal heirs of the ceased inter se and scope of such proceedings could not be enlarged to include settlement of disputed claims and determination of liabilities of legal heirs of the deceased."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argues that without approaching the court of competent jurisdiction and the disputed notice by said court the Branch Manager cannot seize/block the account at his own or following the SOPS of Bank. However , Bank Manager placed the amount on safer side and seized the account as the application was received to protect the both sides with good intention. This argument has also been advanced by learned Legal Advisor of Bank, who is in attendance for assistance of this Court and to address the above proposition, submits that proper procedure has not been adopted for issuance of notice by the Court of competent jurisdiction, which is legal requirement. As the legal requirement has not been adopted by the brother of deceased namely Javed Khan Lodhi, therefore, bank account cannot be seized.
8. In view of above, the Branch Manager of Bank, in attendance, is directed to unfreeze/unblock the account in favour of the petitioner , who is the survivor under the terms and conditions of the Bank established between the deceased Asif Khan Lodhi and the petitioner . With this direction, the instant petition is disposed of.