SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J: --The appellant, who is contesting election from NA-84/Gujrat-V (now numbered as Mandi Baha-ud--Din-III) has filed this appeal challenging the acceptance of nomination papers of Nazar Muhammad Gondal, respondent No.l, on the ground that he was a defaulter of the bank loan amounting to more than Rs.10 lacs.
2. According to the appellant's own showing, which appear from the certified copy of the Bank statement, placed with this appeal, the respondent owed a sum of Rs.17,45,432 before 28-8-1993.
He paid a sum of Rs.6,91,000 on 28-8-1993 leaving a sum of Rs.10,54,432 outstanding. On 1-9-1993, he deposited a sum of Rs,1,03,000 leaving outstanding amount against him as Rs.9,51,432.
Another document placed on record is receipt of payment of Rs.3,54,000 on 8-8-1993. This payment, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, was against the overdue mark-up.
3. While conceding that the respondent owed only a sum of Rs.9,51,432 on 1-9-1993, to Habib Bank Limited, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously argued to make out a case that the respondent was defaulter on the date, he filed the nomination papers and so was not able to contest the election. Nonetheless, he failed to say anything when confronted with the proposition that even if a defaulter pays the amount before 13th of this month (which is yet to dawn), he will become eligible to contest the election. Having failed to convince us on this point, learned counsel additionally submitted that the respondent was a defaulter on account of non-payment of loan obtained from other banks/finance institutions.
4. It does not appear from the impugned order that the appellant had taken up such an objection before the Returning Officer. Actually, the order does not show that the appellant had taken up any objection. The name of one Allah Ditta is mentioned in the order as objector has not filed any appeal. Looking from that angle, the appeal is not even competent, Nonetheless, we have considered the contentions raised by the learned - counsel for the appellant, he had asserted that he had also objected about the outstanding loan of Habib Bank Ltd., alongwith Allah Ditta.
Having considered all aspects of the case, we are convinced that no case has been made out for interference in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.