Petitioner's father had allegedly obtained a loan of four lac rupees from the A.D.B.P., Abdali Road Branch, Multan, and on his death proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the loan amount from his legal heirs, including Ijaz Hussain petitioner, who. Has challenged his liability by filing this writ petition and has in particular assailed the validity of the order of detention enforced against him.
2. It is to be borne in mind that under the Loan Agreement executed on 8-3-1990, Malik Allah Ditta, father of the petitioner, is shown to have been advanced the amount of loan in question by the A.D.B.P. And as postulated by condition No.12, heirs, successors and assignees of a debtor, on his death are individually and severally liable for repayment of such amount. It is up to the creditor to enforce his claim against any one of them. Under section 25 (2), A.D.B.P. Ordinance, 1961, the matter is referred to the Revenue Authorities, and under provisions of sections 81 to 90 of Land Revenue Act, proceedings are taken against such defaulters. Detention of a defaulter may be the first option, although steps may also be taken for action and sale of the property pledged by the loanee.
Defaulter may be kept in civil detention or restraint for an initial period of ten days. There is an odd plea invoked by the petitioner in question his liability. He says that one Mazhar Javed, a Mobile Credit Officer of the A.D.B.P. Had through forgery and fraud obtained a huge amount of four lac rupees as loan, in the name of the petitioner's father. The respondents have pointed it out to the Court that Mr. Mazhar Javed is husband of sister of the petitioner and further that even during his lifetime the petitioner's father Malik Allah Ditta had himself made certain payments, which fact would serve to dispel and disprove the aforesaid allegation of the petitioner. The petitioner is only aiming at evading his liability or frustrate the efforts made by the creditor towards recovery of the amount of loan. A bid has at least evidently been made to delay or defer the payment, which the petitioner is under an unquestionable liability to make, as male successor-in-interest of the loanee, late Malik Allah Ditta. This unholy object he cannot evidently be allowed to achieve and that too through process of the Court.
3. Considered from any angle, it cannot be said that the proceedings taken against the petitioner have no legal sanction. Interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not called for and the writ petition is rejected.