Conditional Leave to Defend Becomes Ineffective Due to Fake Surety Bond — 2025 CLC 1580.
Order 37 & Fake surety bond.
📌 کیس کا پس منظر
📌 بنیادی قانونی سوال
📌 جعلی ضمانتی مچلکہ کا انکشاف
📌 ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ
📌 ہائی کورٹ کے مشاہدات
📌 شرط کی عدم تعمیل کا اثر
📌 عدالت کے ساتھ دھوکہ (Fraud with the Court)
📌 سیکشن 115 سی پی سی کے تحت نظرثانی اختیار
ہائی کورٹ نے مزید قرار دیا کہ جب ٹرائل کورٹ کا حکم قانون اور شواہد کے مطابق ہو تو ہائیکورٹ سیکشن 115 سی پی سی کے تحت مداخلت نہیں کرتی۔
📌 حتمی نتیجہ
Must read Judgement
2025 C 1. C 1580
[Lahore (Multan Bench)]
Before Raheel Kamran, J
MUHAMMAD IRSALAN FARAZ-Petitioner
Versus
HABIB UL REHMAN ---Respondent
Civil Revision No. 609 of 2025, decided on 19th May, 2025.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-
O.XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2(2) & 3(2) Suit for recovery-Conditional leave to defend, grant of Failure to satisfy the condition--Effect-Order granting conditional leave to defend, recalling of-Scope---The respondent filed a suit for recovery under O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. against the petitioner---The petitioner defendant filed an application for leave to defend the suit, which was accepted subject to furnishing surety bonds-Respondent/plaintiff moved application alleging that the surety bond submitted by the petitioner/defendant was fake and forged-The Trial Court, after conducting an inquiry, found the surety bond to be fake---Consequently, the court recalled its earlier order granting conditional leave and dismissed the petitioner's/defendant's application to defend the suit-Subsequently, petitioner filed the present civil revision arguing that the impugned order was illegal and that he should have been allowed to furnish fresh surety Primary legal question in the present civil revision was as to "whether a court could retract an order granting leave to defend in a summary suit under O. XXXVII of the C.P.C., when the condition precedent attached to that that leave had not not been genuinely fulfilled?"-Held: When leave to appear and defend the suit and defend the suit was granted subject to a specific condition, the very efficacy of that leave depended on fulfillment of that condition-If the condition was not met in its true letter and spirit, the order granting conditional leave became inoperative-In the present case, the trial court, after conducting an inquiry that included summoning and recording of the statement of the relevant patwari, arrived at the finding that the petitioner/defendant submitted forge forged surety bonds, which clearly constituted non-compliance of the conditional order granting leave to defend-The submission of a fake surety bond was not merely a technicality rather it constituted an act of fraud committed with court-Therefore, no illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the court below was pointed out warranting interference by the High Court in in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the C.P.C.--Civil revision being devoid of any merit was dismissed in limine.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
O.XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2 & 3(2) Suit for recovery-Conditional leave to defend, grant of-Scope-Failing to satisfy the condition-Effect---Conditional grant of leave is contingent upon the satisfactory fulfillment of the stipulated terms and failure to meet those terms effectively nullifies the leave granted Plain reading of R. 3(2) of O. XXXVII of C.P.C. clearly establishes the court's authority to grant conditional leave The power of the Trial Court to grant leave to defend subject to conditions is, thus, a matter of judicial discretion---Implicit in such authority to pass conditional order is the understanding that the fulfillment of the condition is crucial for the leave to remain effective.
Haji Ali Khan and Company, Abbottable and 8 others v. Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Abbottable PLD 1995 SC 362; Abdullah v. Shaukat 2001 SCMR 60 and Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Ghulam Qadir 2011 SCMR 659 rel.