1987 PLP 53 (MLD)

Suit No.138 of 1985, decided on 7th December, 1986.

S.6--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.3--Suit for recovery of bank loan--Leave to appear and defend suit, granting of--Plaintiff's suit relating to recovery of Rs.3,50,000--Cheque issued by Managing Director of defendants relating to claimed amount dishonoured--Outstanding amount against defendant according to affidavit of plaintiff filed in Court appearing to be Rs.2,39,552.60--Plea of defendant's Counsel that cheque issued by Managing Director of defendant amounting to over and above the actual outstanding amount would not bind other share-holders of Company--To consider why a cheque over and above the outstanding claim was issued in favour of plaintiffs, leave to appear and defend suit was granted to defendants. Mumtaz Ahmed for Plaintiff. Amjid Husain for Defendants. The plaintiff hag filed a suit for recovery of Rs 3,50,000 under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. alleging that the defendant had issued to the plaintiff a Cheque No.C-13/166982 dated 24th December, 1984 for Rs.3,50,000 which was dishonoured on presentation. The defendant has filed an application under Order XXXVII, R. 3, C.P.C. seeking leave to appear and defend the suit on the ground that the cheque was issued in favour of the plaintiff which was undated and was to serve as security for the business dealing the parties had between themselves. In this regard the learned counsel has pointed out to the letter of the plaintiff from which it seems that in their accounts the debit in the sum of Rs.8,326.50 was outstanding against the defendant on 31-12-1984. The learned counsel for the plaintiff states that this statement has not been signed by the plaintiff but it is not necessary to enter into this aspect of the case as with the counter affidavit the plaintiff has filed its letter dated 13-10-1984 in which the total outstanding amount against the defendant and other concerns have been given Rs. 2,39,552.60 but the amount outstanding against the defendant has been shown Rs.8,326.50. Mr. Amjad, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the Managing Director of the defendant is the proprietor of the remaining three concerns namely Gilani Petrol Service, Raja Brothers Multan, Raja Brothers Peshawar but because he is the proprietor it does not mean that his personal action or dealing will bind down the, defendant which is completely separate entity from its Managing Director, Directors and share-holders. Taking this letter as basis for claim wonder why the defendant could issue a cheque of Rs 3,50,000 against a total outstanding Rs.2,39,552.60. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case in my view, the defendant has made out a strong defence. The defendant is granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit. A . A . /J-4/ K Application granted