1. ' SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.---Syed Tehreem Abbas, who is a candidate from PP-98, Mandi Bahauddin and Syed Tasneem Hussain, a voter from the same Constituency had raised objections against the candidature of Ch. Muhammad Aslam respondent No,2 at the time of scrutiny that he was a defaulter to the tune of Rs,2.014 million of the Habib Bank Ltd., and so was not eligible to contest the election. The learned Returning Officer accepted the explanation submitted by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, turned down the objection and accepted the nomination papers of Ch. Muhammad Aslam vide order, dated 2-94993. Not feeling satisfied both of them have jointly filed the instant appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that respondent No,2 had not only failed to pay back the loan obtained from the Habib Bank Ltd., within the stipulated period but had also submitted a false affidavit alongwith the application filed for grant of leave to defend the suit filed by the bank against the respondent for recovery of the loan. In that regard the learned counsel particularly referred to paras 11 and 12 of the written statement attached with the said application.
2. (Learned counsel has placed certified copies of the plaint, application filed by the respondent for permission to defend the suit, and the written statement). Learned counsel added that apart from the loan which the respondent owed to the Habib Bank Ltd., he had also obtained loans from A.D.B.P. Vide Accounts Nos.096762, 097228 and 101316. On the basis of above facts, learned counsel, strenuously argued that the Returning Officer committed an illegality by accepting the nomination papers of the respondent. He strongly criticised the conduct of the respondent vis-a-vis the affidavit filed by him alongwith the application for permission to defend the suit saying that it was an affidavit wilfully sworn as false.
3. ' Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs,10,59,000 to Habib Bank Ltd. On 28-8-1993 vide receipt issued by the Manager of the Bank. He stated that he had submitted an application on 1-9-1993 to the Returning Officer that the Manager of Habib Bank be summoned so that no doubt is left about the authentication of the payment of Rs,10,59,000 by him to the Bank as arrears of the loan. Learned counsel added that the Manager of the Bank had appeared and the learned Returning Officer after having verified from him had accepted the nomination papers, noting that the respondent was not a defaulter. Learned counsel submitted that notwithstanding the fact that it appears from the bare reading of paras. 11 and 12 of the written statement filed alongwith the application to defend the suit that he had denied that he had taken loan but the respondent while filing the nomination papers had declared that he had obtained loan and had paid the due instalment outstanding against him. Learned counsel explained that the denial made in paragraphs 11 and 12 was also not to the fact of loan having ever been not taken but it was to convey his position that he had not obtained the loan from the branch which had filed the suit for recovery of the loan. With regard to the loan he alleged to have obtained from A.D.B.P., learned counsel submitted that his client was not served with any notice to pay back the same and so he neither paid any instalment nor the whole amount.
4. ' Learned counsel for the respondent, after having concluded submissions, came forth with a plea that his client is prepared to pay the whole amount due from him which he had obtained as a loan from Habib Bank as well as from A.D.B.P. Before 13-9-1993, as announced by the Government, subject to the condition that the impugned order is not set aside and only a stipulation to that extent is incorporated in that. Learned counsel while making the statement also produced a written application on behalf of the respondent, who is present in person.
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellant refused to concede, that, in case the respondent pays the whole amount he be allowed to contest the election, nonetheless we have considered the offer considering the whole matter in its totality. In that what particularly weighed with us is that although the respondent had made a denial that he ever had obtained loan from Habib Bank and had submitted an affidavit also which apparently was incorrect but A while filing a declaration, he had not only owned responsibility but had paid a major portion of the debt also. We thus feel that it was in a way repentance shown to what he had earlier said. No doubt, the responsibility of the respondent being an Advocate, to be always truthful is at a higher level but it has got to be kept in mind that the people while defending the suit generally come out with such denials. In the circumstances, now that he has offered to pay each penny which is due from him, we are inclined to hold in favour of the respondent to participate in the election.
6. ' As a result of above discussion the offer made by the respondent in writing is accepted. The impugned order shall stand but with a stipulation that in case the respondent fails to clear the indebtedness by 13-9-1993, his nomination papers shall be deemed to have been not accepted.