' Through the institution of the present constitutional petition, the petitioner has prayed that "respondent No,2 may be refrained from demanding the payment of interest amount from the petitioner".
2. Facts, as narrated in this petition, are that on 17-3-1984, respondent No,2 sanctioned a loan for a sum of Rs,1,37,512 in favour of the petitioner for the purchase of tractor and the said amount alongwith a contribution made by the petitioner total amount of Rs,1,44,750 was paid to Messrs Alghazi Tractors Limited. According to the petitioner although he has paid a sum of Rs,1,32,541 as against the principal amount of Rs,1,37,512 yet the respondent No,2 is still demanding a sum of Rs,1,61,772 from the petitioner. It has been narrated in the writ petition that a civil suit filed by the respondent-bank is pending before the learned Special Court Banking, Faisalabad, and as the Special Court Banking has no jurisdiction to grant any relief to the petitioner in respect of the amount of "interest", therefore, the present Constitutional petition has been filed.
3. Despite the service of the respondents, nobody has entered appearance to represent the respondents, hence, they are proceeded ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the "interest/mark-up" comes within the scope of "Riba," which has been declared as un-Islamic by the Federal Shariat Court in a judgment rendered in Dr. Mahmood-ur-Rahman Faisal and others v. Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and othe -s (PLD 1992 Federal Shariat Court 1).
5. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained a loan facility from the respondent-Bank and must have executed some charge documents favouring bank. Undoubtedly, the petitioner entered into agreement with his free-will, therefore, even under the Islamic norms of justice, the petitioner is bound to fulfil the contractual obligations and commitments undertaken through the execution of those documents. Reliance is placed on Messrs Momin Motor Company v. The Regional Transport Authority, Dacca and others (PLD 1962 SC 108). Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Muhammad Mumtaz Masud and 2 others v. House Building Finance Corporation and 2 others (1994 SCM R 2287) has held that "the petitioner secured the loan in question under a written agreement and is bound by the terms of the said agreement." It would be appropriate to refer the case of Syed Anwar-ul-Hussain v. District Manager, Small Business Finance Corporation Branch Vehari and 2 others (2001 YLR 2741) wherein the aforesaid judgments have been referred and is apt to the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. So far as the only contention raised by the learned counsel in respect of charging of mark- up/interest, as the same is un-Islamic, is concerned, suffice it to say, that this Court in view of Article 203(G) of the Constitution has got no power or jurisdiction, under the law, to determine the same as per principle laid down by this Court in the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Citi Bank (2001 CLC 158). Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki v. Syed Muhammad Hashim and 2 others (PLD 2000 SC 225) has held that no doubt interest/Riba is un-Islamic, but past and closed transaction cannot be re-opened.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy to file a suit against the respondent- Bank under section 9 of Act XV of 1997, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the principle laid down in Ch. Muhammad Ismail v. Fazal Zada, Civil Judge, Lahore and 20 others (PLD 1996 SC 246) and Mrs. Farha Nasir v. Pakistan through Secretary to Government, Ministry of Economics and Commercial Affairs, Islamabad and 2 others 2001 M LD 1657.
8. In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to exercise my Constitutional jurisdiction under the facts and circumstances of the case, which otherwise has no merits.
9. It is in this perspective and for the reasons stated above, I am constrained to dismiss this petition, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.