1995SCMR45 (PLP)
M. ASHRAF PARWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Prof. ASGHAR ALI NAAZ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR45 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | M. ASHRAF PARWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Prof. ASGHAR ALI NAAZ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR45 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR45 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR45 (PLP) (M. ASHRAF PARWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Prof. ASGHAR ALI NAAZ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th March, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26‑1‑1993 in R.F.A. No. 94 of 1992). ‑ Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XXXVII, R.2‑‑‑Suit in summary jurisdiction for refund of security which plaintiff had deposited with defendant‑‑Defendant did not seek leave to appear and defend suit within prescribed period‑‑‑Defendant's belated application' for that purpose was, however, dismissed on ground of limitation and plaintiff's suit was decreed‑‑‑Plaintiff's decree was maintained by the High Court in appeal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Defendant did not offer any satisfying explanation as to why he did not seek leave to .appear and defend suit within prescribed period‑‑‑Medical 'certificate did not cover relevant period‑‑‑Trial Court was, thus, right in not entertaining defendant's belated application in that respect‑‑ Defendant's claim that plaintiff had embezzled large sum of money and that he had filed suit against plaintiff for recovery of that amount would be of no avail to defendant for he ‑had still to establish that plaintiff had embezzled money belonging to him‑‑‑Plaintiff, on the other hand, having obtained decree for recovery of security, could not be made to wait in seeking refund of security amount till the suit filed by defendant was decided‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII, Civil Procedure Code, against ‑the petitioner essentially for the refund of security in the sum of Rs.30,000 which he had deposited with the latter at the time of his appointment‑as principal of a college administered by him. The petitioner did not seek leave to appear and defend the suit within the prescribed period. Subsequently, he filed a belated application in this regard which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The trial Court then decreed the suit of the respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court, but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There .is no satisfactory explanation why the petitioner did not seek leave to appear and defend the suit within the prescribed period. The medical certificate which he filed before the learned District Judge did not cover the relevant period. The District Judge was therefore right in not entertaining his application in this regard on the ground of limitation.
3. In support of this petition it is alleged that the respondent owed to the petitioner a large sum of money which he had embezzled and that the petitioner had filed a suit against him for the recovery of the same. This may be so, but the petitioner has vet to establish that the respondent had embezzled the money belonging to the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner does not dispute that he had obtained Rs.30,000 by way of security from the respondent which was refundable to the latter on the termination of his employment. It does not seem appropriate in the circumstances of this case that the respondent should be made to wait in seeking refund of the security amount till the suit filed by the petitioner is decided. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. AA./M-2057/S Leave refused,