2008 PLP 39 (SCMR)
BASHUMAL — Petitioner Versus Dr. ZAHOOR AHMAD SHEIKH — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 39 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | BASHUMAL — Petitioner Versus Dr. ZAHOOR AHMAD SHEIKH — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 39 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 39 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 39 (SCMR) (BASHUMAL — Petitioner Versus Dr. ZAHOOR AHMAD SHEIKH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- 3. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record. His contention is that besides the above suit the respondent has also initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner under section 489-F, P.P.C. wherein the petitioner was arrested and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on furnishing security in the sum of Rs.2,00,000. It has been submitted by learned Advocate-on-Record that petitioner has furnished surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 in pursuance of order of this Court dated 6-10-2006 and the said surety may be treated as security in this case. This contention is without any merit. Conditional leave to defend was granted to the petitioner on providing security in the sum of Rs.5,50,000. This case and the criminal case pending against the petitioner are two separate cases and the surety furnished by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 in pursuance of the order of this Court, dated 6-10-2006 for his release on bail cannot be treated as security in this case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 20-2-2007 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in R.A. No.14 of 2007). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
(b)
O. XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Leave to defend suit was granted to petitioner conditionally on furnishing security in the sum of Rs.5,50,000 within 30 days of the order
Petitioner, who did not comply with order furnishing security, filed revision application before the High Court for waiver of such condition which was dismissed
Contention of the petitioner was that besides the said suit, respondent had also initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner under section 489-F, P. P. C., wherein petitioner was arrested and was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing security in the sum of Rs.2,00,000
Submission of petitioner was that he having furnished security in the sum of Rs.2,00,000, same could be treated as security in the present case
Contention of petitioner was without any merit, as that case and criminal case pending against him were two separate cases and security furnished by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 for his release on bail, could not be treated as security in the case
On failure of petitioner to furnish security as ordered by the District Judge within the period of thirty days, suit in accordance with the provision of O.XXXVII, C.P.C., stood decreed
Question of accepting the security furnished by the petitioner in the bail case as security in present case, would not arise
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.
This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 20-2-2007 whereby revision application filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII, rule 3, C.P.C. for recovery of Rs.5,38,600 against petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi South. Leave to defend the suit was granted vide order, dated 16-1-2007 conditionally on furnishing security in the sum of Rs.5,50,000 within 30 days of the order. The petitioner did not comply with the above order and filed revision application before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi for waiver of the condition of deposit of Rs.5,50,
000. This revision application was dismissed as stated above. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record. His contention is that besides the above suit the respondent has also initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner under section 489-F, P.P.C. wherein the petitioner was arrested and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on furnishing security in the sum of Rs.2,00,
000. It has been submitted by learned Advocate-on-Record that petitioner has furnished surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 in pursuance of order of this Court dated 6-10-2006 and the said surety may be treated as security in this case. This contention is without any merit. Conditional leave to defend was granted to the petitioner on providing security in the sum of Rs.5,50,
000. This case and the criminal case pending against the petitioner are two separate cases and the surety furnished by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 in pursuance of the order of this Court, dated 6-10-2006 for his release on bail cannot be treated as security in this case.
4. As a matter of fact, on failure of the petitioner to furnish security as ordered by the District Judge within the period of thirty days the suit in accordance with the provision of Order XXXVII, C.P.C. stood decreed. In the circumstances the question of accepting the surety furnished by the petition in his bail case as security in this case does not arise.
5. This petition is without any substance and is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T/13-5/SC Petition dismissed.