 |
| 2026 clc 760 recovery suit. |
پندرہ کروڑ کے پرونوٹ کا مقدمہ
— مختصر کہانی
ٹرائل کورٹ میں کیا ہوا؟
⚖️ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
حتمی فیصلہ
اہم قانونی نکتہ
Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 760
[Lahore (Multan Bench)]
Before Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J
ALLAH DITTA --Petitioner
Versus
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN ---Respondent
Civil Revision No. 922 of 2024, decided on 27th November, 2024.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
-O.XXXVII, R.3--Suit for recovery (of Rs. 15,00,00,000/-) on the basis of negotiable instrument /promissory note---Defendant stance (denial of execution of negotiable instrument etc.), considering of-Leave to defend, grant of-Whether conditional or unconditional---Trial Court, powers of-Scope-Perusal of the impugned order showed that on one hand, on the basis of denial of the petitioner to have executed the pronote-in-question, the Court reached the conclusion that the matter in controversy could only be resolved after recording of evidence as valuable rights of the petitioner were involved in the suit and if such permission was not granted to him, he would have to suffer a lot; and on the other hand, the Court while allowing application the leave to defend imposed condition of furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs. 15,00,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court-Said condition apparently rently appeared to o have have been imposed on the ground that respondent /plaintiff had appeared in the Court and stated that he had no objection to grant of leave to defend subject to payment of costs-From the tenor of the impugned order, the phrase 'subject to payment of costs' in the statement of the respondent/plaintiff was probably treated by the Court as 'subject to furnishing of security/surety bond---While granting leave to defend in a suit under summary jurisdiction, although the concession of the plaintiff can be taken into consideration by the Trial Court, yet while relying upon the same, the Court also has to take into consideration that whether the leave should be granted conditionally or unconditionally and the same is to be done by application of independent judicious mind wi without being influenced infl by the concession of the plaintiff requiring the Court to to impose impose a a con condition of either depositing the amount or furnishing security for the same in any shape such as submitting surety bond, bank guarantee, etc.---Impugned order appeared to have been passed merely on the basis of request of the respondent/plaintiff, hence, did not appear to be passed on the basis of proper exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court and for the said jurisdictional defect, the same was not sustainable to this extent--High Court set-aside the impugned order with the observation that unconditional leave to defend be granted to the petitioner / defendant, and it issued directions to the Trial Court to expeditiously conclude the trial of the case---Revision petition, was allowed accordingly..
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)...
-O.XXXVII, R.3---Suit for recovery (of Rs. 15,00,00,000/-) on the basis of negotiable instrument /promissory note---Defendant's stance (denial of execution of negotiable instrument etc.), considering of---Leave to defend, grant of---Whether conditional or unconditional---Principles-Trial Court, powers wers of-Sound reasoning and judicious application of mind-Although the order of grant or refusal of leave to defend is discretionary yet the discretion upon which leave to defend can be granted conditionally or unconditionally is to be exercised on the basis of sound judicial reasoning-The defence taken by the applicant/defendant for grant of unconditional leave to defend should be of good standard, which should be considered plausible for grant of unconditional leave to defend---There should be application of mind for decision of the application for grant of leave to defend by keeping in view the standard and plausibility of defence of the applicant-defendant and such an order could could not he passed in an arbitra an arbitrary manner resulting in imposition of a condition merely at the asking of the plaintiff of the case-In the present case, though the Trial Court had considered the defence /facts of the petitioner/defendant like he neither obtained any amount from the respondent/plaintiff nor executed the pronote being result of fraud, forgery and impersonation and on the basis of these facts it was observed by the Trial Court that the petitioner had raised a plea whereby he had categorically refuted the claim of the respondent, which for its determination required grant of leave to defend; which meant that the defence plea raised by the petitioner was treated as plausible-However, while doing so the Trial Court had imposed a condition for deposit of surety bond equal to the amount claimed (Rs. 15,00,00,000/-) without considering the circumstances of the case and plausibility of defence raised by the petitioner---The order to the extent of imposition the said condition did not appear to be based on sound reasoning and judicious application of mind--High Court set-aside the impugned order with the observation that unconditional leave to defend be granted to the petitioner/defendant, however in light of concern of the respondent /plaintiff that matter might be delayed by granting unconditional leave to defend, High Court directed the concerned Trial Court to expeditiously conclude the trial of the case without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and while doing so to keep in mind that prejudice is not caused to rights of any of any of the parties by parties by keeping in view both the time tested principles of law that "justice delayed is justice denied" and "justice hurried is justice buried; so balance is to be struck between the said two principles---Revision Petition, was allowed accordingly.
Zubair Ahmad and another v. Shahid Mirza and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1747; Mian Ejaz Amir v. Haji Muhammad Ibrahim 2003 CL.D 5342023 CLC 880; Naseem Khan v. Sardar Bahadur Khan PLD 2019 Pesh. 141 and Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State 1993 SCMR 550 ref.
Tariq Saleem for Petitioner.