2006 PLP 760 (CLC)
KHALID FAROOQ — Appellant Versus MAZHAR IQBAL HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 760 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHALID FAROOQ — Appellant Versus MAZHAR IQBAL HUSSAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 760 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 760 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 760 (CLC) (KHALID FAROOQ — Appellant Versus MAZHAR IQBAL HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3
Suit for recovery of amount on basis of Pro note
Application for leave to appear and defend suit
Application filed by defendant for leave to appear and defend suit was allowed by Trial Court and leave was granted subject to furnishing a surety bond in suit amount before next date of hearing
Needful was not done by defendant and instead he filed an application for extension of time on ground that defendant remained ill and could not file surety bond and written statement
No medical certificate was appended by defendant with his application for extension of time
Even with the present appeal no such certificate had been filed by defendant
Defendant did not even disclose nature of his illness
Trial Court, in circumstances had rightly decreed suit filed by plaintiff and appeal against said order of Trial Court, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
On 7-11-2000 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs.95,
000. According to the plaint, the appellant borrowed the said amount from the respondent and promised to return the same on demand vide a pro. note executed on 13-6-2000. The amount was demanded but not paid. The appellant was served in accordance with law and filed an application for leave to appear and to defend the suit. This application. was allowed on 25-10-2001 by the learned trial Court who granted leave to the appellant to defend the suit subject to furnishing a surety bond in the suit amount before the next date of hearing which was fixed at 8-11-2001. The needful was not done and instead an application was filed for extension of time which was refused and leave was withdrawn. The suit was accordingly decreed in the said amount on 1-12-2001.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that sufficient reasons had been made for extension of time. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.
3. I have gone through the records of the learned trial Court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Now the said application was filed on 8-11-2001. It was stated that the appellant remained ill from 26-10-2001 to 6-11-2001 and as such could not filed the surety bond and the written statement. The application was resisted. Now I find that the learned trial Court observed that no medical certificate is appended with the application. I find that even with this R.F.A., no such certificate has been tiled. Besides I find that the application does not even disclose the nature of illness. This being so, I do not find any force in this R.F.A. which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. H.B.T./K-131/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.