1. ' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner secured loan from the respondents in the year 1996 and an agreement was also executed between the petitioner and the respondents. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner had repaid total principal amount to the respondent-Bank. The balance amount claimed by the respondents, is interest which is against the Injunction of Islam.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that this Court has ample jurisdiction to declare the interest claimed by the respondents against the petitioner, as unIslamic in view of Article 2A of the Constitution read with Article 38 and Article 203-D and Article 203-B of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with provisions of Enforcement Sharia Act, 1991. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- "Muhammad Hassan Moosa v. Sardar M. Javed Moosa" (1997 SCMR 1982).
2. "Zaheer-ud-Dip v. The State" (1993 SCMR 1718). "Fida Hussain v. Mst. Najma" (PLD 2000 Quetta 46).
3. "Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan" (PLD 2001 SC 18).
4. "Sh. Liaquat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan" (PLD 1999 SC 504).
5. "Mst. Kaneez Fatima v. Wali Muhammad" (PLD 1993 SC 901).
6. ' He further submits that the contract executed between the petitioner and the respondents is void and hit by section 23 of the Contract Act as per principle laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- "Wafaq Pakistan v. Public-at-large" (1988 SCMR 2041).
7. "Habib Bank v. M/s. Qayyum Spinning Ltd." (2001 MLD 1351).
8. "Anjuman Prize Bond Dealers v. Province of Punjab" (PLD 2001 Lahore 129).
9. "Habib Bank Ltd. v. A.B.M. Graner (Pvt.) Ltd." (PLD 2001 Karachi 264).
10. ' He summed-up his arguments that section 15 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 is against the Injunction of Islam.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to declare section 15 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 is violated to the Injunction of Islam while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution in view of bar contained under Article 203-G of the Constitution. He further submits that respondent No,3 had filed a Suit No,16 of 2001 for recovery against the petitioner before the Banking Court-1, Bahawalpur on 26-7-2001. The learned Judge Banking Court had passed the interim decree against the petitioner and others on 31-1-2002 with the consent of the parties to the extent of liability admitted by the petitioner and others in the suit and leave to defend the suit was granted to the petitioner qua remaining amount of the respondent-bank as the petitioner filed petition to leave to defend the suit before the Banking Court by raising all legal and factual objections, which are highlighted by the petitioner in the contents of writ petition. The petitioner and other aggrieved persons had already filed two appeals i.e. R.F.A. No,36 of 2002 and R.F.A. No,62 of 2002 before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench. He further submits that the petitioner has challenged the vires of section 15 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances)
11. Act, 1997 through this Constitutional petition. The aforesaid act has been no more in the field in view of promulgation of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. He further submits that the contents of writ petition and application for the grant of unconditional leave to defend the suit are verbatim, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous on legal as well as factual premises.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is admitted fact that the petitioner and the respondent-bank executed a contract of their own sweet Will and the petitioner wants enforcement of contract through this Constitutional petition which is not A permissible in the eye of law as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mumtaz Masood's ease (1994 SCMR 2287). It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has alternative remedy to file a suit against the respondent-bank before the Judge Banking Court under the provisions of Banking Law, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable in -view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Muhammad Ismail's case (PLD 1996 SC 246). It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to declare the c provisions of law against Injunction of Islam on the touchstone of Article 2A of the Constitution in view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in (2000 SCMR D 567). As far as the charge of interest is concerned, this Court has got no authority under the law to determine the same in view of Article 203-G of the Constitution. In arriving to this conclusions, I am fortified by the following judgments:-- (2001 CLC 1655) Tahir Mehmood's case.
12. (2001 CLC 158) Muhammad Ramzan's case. (2001 CLC 57) Mst. Aisan's case.
13. (2001 YLR 1891) Muhammad Asifs case. (2001 YLR 651') Muhammad Rashid's case (2001 YLR 38)
14. Rafique Ahmad Tahir's case. (2001 MLD 577) Manager, Ravi Rayan's case. (2001 MLD 1657) Mst.
15. Farha-Nasir's case. (2001 MLD 1996) Sh. Muhammad Ikram's case.
16. ' It is also settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the case, as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of Karachi High Court in "Nasir Jamal v. Zubaida Begum" (1990 CLC 1069). It is admitted fact that the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 has been repealed by the virtue of section 29 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. It is also admitted fact that the respondent-bank had filed a suit against the petitioner and others and preliminary decree had already been passed against the petitioner and otheRs, The petitioner and others have already filed two appeals before this Court, which are pending adjudication. In case, the contents of writ petition and the application for leave to defend the suit are put in juxtaposition, then both are verbatim copies of each otheRs, In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition has become infructuous.
17. ' In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.