Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Haji MUHAMMAD ASHIQ VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AJMAL QURESHIHonorable Justice MUNIR A. SHEIKHMehtab, Advocate,M. A. Qureshi, Advocate
2002 C L D 1205
2002 C L D 1205
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Munir A. Sheikh. Actg. C.J. and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J
Haji MUHAMMAD ASHIQ‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD AJMAL QURESHI and others‑‑‑Respondents
Civil Petitions Nos.462‑L and 466‑L of 2002, decided on 13th February, 2002.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 9‑10‑2001 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 15122 and 15123 of 2001).
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss.9 & 15‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/468/471/109‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition before High Court‑‑‑Execution of ex parte decree for recovery of Bank loan from petitioners (guarantors) and respondents (borrowers)‑‑‑Adjustment of amount of bail bonds against decretal loan amount‑‑ Petitioners registered a criminal case against respondents for having fraudulently used their title documents for obtaining loan and showing them as guarantors‑‑‑Criminal Court while granting bail to respondents on furnishing bail bonds ordered the adjustment of amount of bail bonds against decretal amount‑‑‑High Court declared such order to be without lawful authority in Constitutional petitions filed by respondents‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Till recording of a finding by Criminal Court after trial that petitioners were guilty of the offence, the amount of bail bonds provided by them could neither be confiscated nor utilized against amount of loan, which could be recovered in execution proceedings by Bank against all judgment‑debtors or any of them‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused to grant leave to appeal.
M. D. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 13th February, 2002.
JUDGMENT
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, ACTG. C.J.‑‑‑By this common judgment, we propose to decide Civil Petitions Nos.462‑L and 466‑L of 2002 as questions of law and facts are identical in both of them.
2. The facts of the case are that on the report of the present petitioners, a criminal case was registered against the private respondents in which it was alleged that by playing fraud the said respondents used their documents of title of the property for obtaining loan and showing them as the guarantors. The respondents were granted bail in the said case by the Court by furnishing bail bonds.
3. The bank concerned filed suits against the petitioners and the respondents as well. The petitioners were impleaded as defendants being guarantors. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the said suits were decreed ex parte both against the petitioners as guarantors and the respondents who were the borrowers and the said decree is still intact and is being executed. The Criminal Court, however, ordered the adjustment of the amount of bail bonds against the amount of loan decreed in favour of the bank which was objected to by the petitioners, for till such time, the Criminal Court decides that the petitioners were guilty of the offence, the amount of the security furnished by them could neither be confiscated nor used or adjusted against the amount of loan. therefore, the said order was declared to be without lawful authority by the learned Judge of the High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 9‑10‑2001 against which leave is sought.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to persuade us that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court suffers from any illegality. Till a finding was recorded by the Criminal Court after trial that the petitioners were guilty of the offence, the amount of security provided by them could neither be confiscated nor utilized against the amount of loan which could be recovered in execution proceedings by the bank concerned against all judgment‑debtors or any of them.
5. For the above reasons, we do not find any merits in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed and leave refused.
S.A.K./M‑376/S
Leave refused.