2000 PLP 2867 (YLR)
HAJI KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 2867 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry and Muhammad Zafar Yasin, JJ |
| Parties | HAJI KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2867 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 2867 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry and Muhammad Zafar Yasin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2867 (YLR) (HAJI KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑O.XXXVII, Rr. 2, 3 & S.96‑‑‑Suit ,for recovery of' amount‑‑‑Application for leave to appear and defend suit‑‑‑Leave to appear and defend suit was granted to defendant subject to furnishing surety bond of suit amount tip to a specified date, but defendant neither appeared nor submitted. surer) bond and also did trot file written statement even on the adjourned date of hearing‑‑‑Suit was rightly decreed by Trial Court.
- Khan Zahid Hussain Khan for Appellant.
- Malik Muhammad Ashhab for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
It is argued that leave to appear was granted vide order, dated 24th of April, 1998 and the appellant was directed to furnish surety bond by 16th of May, 1998. It is added that the time was not sufficient.
2. On the other hand, it is argued that the time allowed as more than sufficient and the appellant did not enter appearance on 16th of May, 1998. It is added that the trial Court adjourned the case to 18th of May, 1998 for the same proceedings and thus, provided yet another opportunity to the said appellant. It is added that neither the appellant appear nor furnish the surety bond. It is added that even the order was suspended subject to the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee, even this order was not complied.
3. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The appellant was allowed leave to appear vide order, dated 24th of April, 1998 subject to furnishing security bond in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (three lacs) by 16th of May, 1998. The appellant neither appeared nor submitted bond nor filed written statement. The suit was then adjourned to 18th of May, 1998 for same proceedings but the appellant still failed to avail the same. Thereafter the learned trial Court had no choice but to decree the suit. This is not all. The conduct of‑ the appellant is that he got' decree suspended vide order, dated 24th of June, 1998 passed in this appeal. It was subject to furnishing Bank Guarantee. This order has again not been complied.
4. The upshot of discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./H-19/L Appeal dismissed.