2008 PLP 425 (SCMR)
WAZIR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF QURESHI — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 425 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | WAZIR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF QURESHI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 425 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 425 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 425 (SCMR) (WAZIR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF QURESHI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- 3. We have heard Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and with his assistance, gone through the record. It is inter alia contended that in the first instance, there was no plausible ground for grant of leave as execution of promissory note was not denied. Alternatively, assuming, without conceding that there was an arguable and strong case put forward by the respondent, leave ought to have been granted on condition of furnishing solvent security or bank guarantee but both the Benches of the High Court failed to consider this aspect of the case and granted leave to defend unconditionally without securing the valuable interest of petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh, dated 6-2-2007 passed in H.C.A. No.469 of 2006).
O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit for recovery of amount on the basis of pro note
Unconditional leave to defend suit was granted by the High Court to respondent
Petitioner aggrieved by said order had filed petition for leave to appeal
No plausible ground was .given for grant of leave as execution of promissory note was not denied by the respondent
Even if there was an arguable and strong case put forward by the respondent, leave ought to have been granted on condition of solvent security or Bank guarantee, but both the Benches of the High Court failed to consider such aspect of the case and granted leave unconditionally to defend suit without securing the valuable interest of the petitioner
Leave to appeal was granted to consider question of law whether the High Court was justified in passing the impugned order and whether it could be sustained under the law.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner is aggrieved by Sindh High Court order, dated 6-2-2007 passed in High Court Appeal No.469 of 2006 upholding order, dated 27-11-2006 passed by learned Single Judge under Order XXXVII, rule 3, C.P.C. granted unconditional leave to defend to the respondent.
2. The petitioner filed suit for recovery of Rs.59,22,364 against the respondent on the basis of promissory note, dated 14-7-2004 and undertaking, agreeing to pay the amount described therein on demand. In the application for grant of leave to defend, respondent challenged purchase of leather by the petitioner on his behalf for want of detailed particulars and did not deny execution of the negotiable documents. Learned Single Judge, however, proceeded to grant leave to defend unconditionally which was challenged in High Court Appeal but without any success, hence this petition.
3. We have heard Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and with his assistance, gone through the record. It is inter alia contended that in the first instance, there was no plausible ground for grant of leave as execution of promissory note was not denied. Alternatively, assuming, without conceding that there was an arguable and strong case put forward by the respondent, leave ought to have been granted on condition of furnishing solvent security or bank guarantee but both the Benches of the High Court failed to consider this aspect of the case and granted leave to defend unconditionally without securing the valuable interest of petitioner.
4. Leave to appeal is granted inter alia to consider the question of law whether the High Court was justified in passing the impugned order and whether it can be sustained under the law? H.B.T./W-7/SC Leave granted.