IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The brief facts giving rise to this writ petitions are that the petitioner through this Constitutional petition has taken exception to the charge of interest being violative of Holy Quran and Sunnah. It is the case of the petitioner that he secured loan of Rs.1,85,000/- from respondent No. 3 ' for the purchase of Tractor in the year 1990 and an agreement was executed between the parties; according to the terms thereof the loan was repayed through instalments uptill 1999. The petitioner has repayed loan to the respondent-Bank Rs.50,000/-. The respondents issued notice to the petitioner for repayment out from the record of the respondent and respondents of balance amount
2. Petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner could not repay the loan on account of bad weather and crops of the, petitioner, were destroyed; the petitioner sustained heavily loss on account of the aforesaid circumstances coupled with the facts that petitioner paid other charges to the rising prices like electricity ..Etc. The respondents are harassing the petitioner without any justification; he further submits that respondent No. 1 issued reschedule policy on 16.7.1996 but respondent No. 3 did 'not give benefit of the aforesaid policy to the petitioner inspite of the fact that the petitioner approached respondent No. 3 time and again to re-schedule his loan after receiving 30% of the amount in default on the basis of the aforesaid policy that demand of respondents over and above the principal amount is purely interest/. Ribba' Which is not only violative of the Holy Quran and Sunnah but also" in consonance with the judgment of Federal Shariat Court and Shariat Appellate Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Muhammad Aslam Khaki Vs. Muhammad Hashim". (PLD 2000 SC 225) + (SLR 2000 73). -- '
3. I. Have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is contractual matter which -has' arisen out of an Agreement also executed between the parties on their own sweet Will as such the jurisdiction of this Court under Article '199 of the Constitution would not be attracted as the principle laid down in the following judgments: (P.L.D. 1962 S.C. 108) (M/s. Momin Motor Company's case).
(PLD 1958 SC 267) (The Chandpur Mills Ltd.'s Case).
As far as the charge of interest is concerned this Courtin view of Article 203-G of the Constitution has got no authority under the law to determine the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held Muhammad Aslam Khaki's case, supra that no doubt interest/Riba is un-Islamic but past and closed transaction, are not to be re-opened. Petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner has.
Paid Rs.50,000/- to the respondents, therefore, balance amount Rs.3,32,96/- is not borne out form the record of the respondent and respondents failed to provide copy of accounts to the petitioner.
4. In this view of the matter, respondent No. 3 is directed to determine the liability strictly in accordance with law and Rules read with terms of the Agreement. He-is also directed to allow the petitioner any benefit/concession permissible in such like cases under the law, Rules and Notification. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No. 3-Bank Manager on 15.5.2000, who has already been directed to determine his liability :strictly 'in accordance with law and Rules. Till determination which of course would be completed expeditiously within 20 days till -6.6.2000. The petitioner shall not be harassed till the aforesaid date. Even otherwise the writ petition is not 'maintainable against the demand notice as per law laid down in Shagufta Begum's case (PLD 1989 S.C. 360).
5. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.