Order 37 | The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower courts for failure to furnish a surety bond in a suit for recovery of Rs.13,00,000 under Order 37. 2023 Y L R 887

The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower courts for failure to furnish a surety bond in a suit for recovery of Rs.13,00,000 under Order 37.

2023 Y L R 887

محمد شافی ایک ایماندار تاجر تھا جو دوسرے تاجر سے 13,00,000 روپے ادھار لے کر انہیں واپس کرنے میں ناکام رہا۔ دوسرے تاجر نے اس کے خلاف عدالت میں مقدمہ دائر کر دیا۔

عدالت نے شافی کی درخواست قبول کی، لیکن اسے ضمانتی بانڈ جمع کرانے کی شرط پر۔ شافی نے کئی مواقع پر بانڈ جمع نہیں کرایا، جس پر عدالت نے فیصلہ سناتے ہوئے اس کے خلاف مقدمہ ختم کر دی

خلاصہ:

یہ کیس محمد شافی بمقابلہ ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج اور دیگر میں ہے، جس میں اپیل نمبر R.F.A. 444 کا فیصلہ 9 اکتوبر 2018 کو کیا گیا۔ درخواست گزار (محمد شافی) نے ایک جواب دہندہ کے طور پر 13,00,000 روپے کی وصولی کے لیے دائر کردہ مقدمے میں اپیل دائر کی۔ مقدمے کے دوران، جواب دہندہ نے ٹرائل کورٹ میں پیش ہونے اور دفاع کرنے کے لیے درخواست دی، جسے عدالت نے شرط کے ساتھ قبول کیا کہ وہ ضمانتی بانڈ جمع کرائے گا۔

جواب دہندہ متعدد مواقع کے باوجود ضمانتی بانڈ جمع نہیں کرا سکا، جس کے نتیجے میں مقدمہ 3 مارچ 2016 کو فیصلہ کر دیا گیا۔ درخواست گزار نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل دائر کی اور دلیل دی کہ اس کا حق متاثر ہوا ہے اور اسے موقع دیا جائے کہ وہ مقدمے کا دفاع کرسکے۔

عدالت نے استدلال کیا کہ جواب دہندہ کی غیرحاضری اور ضمانتی بانڈ جمع نہ کرانا اس کی غیر سنجیدگی کی عکاسی کرتا ہے۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے جواب دہندہ کو متعدد مواقع دیے، لیکن وہ حکم کی تعمیل کرنے میں ناکام رہا۔ اس لیے، عدالت نے اس اپیل کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے فیصلہ کیا کہ ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ کسی بھی قانونی یا حقائق کی بنیاد پر کمزور نہیں ہے، لہذا اپیل منظور نہیں کی گئی۔

یہ معاملہ اس اصول کو اجاگر کرتا ہے کہ اگر جواب دہندہ عدالت کے حکم کی تعمیل نہیں کرتا تو عدالت کو فیصلہ دینے کا حق حاصل ہوتا ہے، چاہے وہ جواب دہندہ کے حقوق متاثر ہوتے ہوں۔

2023 Y L R 887

[Lahore]

Before Masud Abid Naqvi, J

MUHAMMAD SHAFI---Petitioner

Versus

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others---Respondents

R.F.A. No. 444 of 2016, heard on 9th October, 2018.*

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3---Summary suit upon bills of exchange, etc---Defendant

showing defence on merits to have leave to appear---Non-submission of surety

bond---Effect---Respondent filed a suit for recovery of certain amount against the

appellant wherein application for leave to appear and defend the suit was filed by

the appellant---Application filed by appellant was accepted subject to submission

of surety bond equal to suit amount---However, despite availing several

opportunities, the surety bond to the satisfaction of Trial Court was not filed and

consequently the suit was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree---Validity---

Appellant's conduct was very much contumacious---Appellant had tried not to

comply with the order of the Trial Court through different tactics and ultimately the

Trial Court had no option but to decree the suit as the appellant's application for

leave to appear and defend the suit was accepted conditionally---Trial Court had

rightly proceeded in the matter---Appeal was dismissed.

Haji Ali Khan and Company, Abbottabad and 8 others v. Messrs Allied Bank of

Pakistan Limited, Abbottabad PLD 1995 SC 363 and Murtaza Haseeb Textile Mills

v. Sitara Chemical Industries 2004 SCMR 882 rel.

Syed Alamdar Hussain for Appellant.

Usama Ahmad for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 9th October, 2018.

JUDGMENT

MASUD ABID NAQVI, J.---Brief facts of this regular first appeal are that the

respondent No.2 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.13,00,000/- against the

appellant/defendant wherein application for leave to appear and defend the suit was

filed by defendant/appellant which was accepted subject to submission of surety

bond equal to suit amount vide order dated 18.01.2016. The defendant/ appellant

appeared and filed leave to appear and defendant the suit, which was accepted

subject to deposit of surety bonds to the tune of suit amount vide order dated

18.01.2016. However, despite availing several opportunities, the surety bond to the

satisfaction of trial court was not filed by the defendant/appellant and consequently

the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016. Feeling

aggrieved, the appellant/defendant has filed the instant appeal and challenged the

validity of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the

impugned order is against law and facts and without taking into consideration that

valuable rights of the appellant/ defendant are involved in the matter, who should

be given an opportunity to contest the suit. He has further argued that law favours

the adjudication on merits instead of technicalities. It is also contended by the

learned counsel for the appellant that the circumstances were out of control of the

appellant/defendant, therefore, the appellant could not file surety bond. He has

prayed for acceptance of the instant appeal and setting aside of the impugned

judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016 passed by the learned trial court.

3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant

and minutely gone through the impugned judgment and decree as well as the

record.

4. Perusal of record reveals that a suit for recovery of Rs.13,00,000/- was

instituted by the respondent/plaintiff wherein the defendant/appellant entered

appearance and his application for leave to appear and defend the suit was accepted

subject to submission of surety bond equal to the suit amount vide order dated

18.01.2016. On 26.01.2016, the case was adjourned and absolute last opportunity

was granted to submit surety bond. On 04.02.2016, appellant/defendant failed to

furnish surety bond inspite of caution of last and final opportunity but in the

interest of justice learned trial court adjourned the case with a direction that no

further adjournment will be granted on the next date of hearing. On 11.02.2016,

surety bond was furnished but it was rejected being invalid and further adjournment

was granted with caution of last and final opportunity to furnish surety bond to the

satisfaction of the trial court, however, the surety bond was not filed by the

defendant/appellant. The appellant's conduct was very much contumacious. He

tried not to comply with the order of the learned trial judge through different tactics

and ultimately the learned trial judge had no option but to decree the suit as the

appellant's application for leave to appear and defend the suit was accepted

conditionally. The learned trial judge gave the appellant sufficient time to comply

with his earlier direction. The appellant, on the contrary instead of complying with

the same, unnecessarily involved the respondent in this uncalled for litigation. His

conduct as determined by the trial court was certainly contumacious and no

illegality whatsoever has been committed by the trial court. Hence, the learned trial

court had no other option than to pass the impugned judgment and decree dated

03.03.2016 and decreed the suit. While dealing with identical matter, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as titled "Haji Ali Khan and Company,

Abbottabad and 8 others v. Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Abbottabad

(PLD 1995 Supreme Court 363) held as under:

10. The ratio decidendi of the above referred cases seems to be that if a

defendant fails to appear or fails to obtain leave to defend in response to a

summons served in form No.4 provided in Appendix B to the C.P.C. or fails

to fulfil the condition on which leave was granted or where the Court

refuses to grant leave, the Court is to pass a decree. It may further be

observed that in sub-rule (2) of rule 2, C.P.C., it has been provided that if a

defendant fails to appear or defaults in obtaining leave, the allegations in the

plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a

decree, but no such consequences are provided for in rule 3 of the above

Order in a case where the Court refuses to grant leave or the defendant fails

to fulfil the condition on which leave was granted. In our view,

notwithstanding the above omission in Rule 3, the effect of refusal of the

Court to grant leave or failure on the part of the defendant to comply with

the condition of the leave, will be the Same i.e. the defendant shall not be

entitled to defend the suit on any ground and the Court would pass a decree

in favour of the plaintiff.

Reliance is also placed on Murtaza Haseeb Textile Mills v. Sitara Chemical

Industries (2004 SCMR 882).

5. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the affirmed view that

learned trial Court has rightly proceeded in the matter. The impugned order does

not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual, requiring interference, therefore, this

appeal is dismissed.

SA/M-7/L Appeal dismissed.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.