2008 PLP 45 (SCMR)
Mian AHSAN EHSAN — Petitioner Versus Mian MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 45 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | Mian AHSAN EHSAN — Petitioner Versus Mian MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 45 (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 45 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 45 (SCMR) (Mian AHSAN EHSAN — Petitioner Versus Mian MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 12-11-2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, in R.F.A. No.691 of 2001).
O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Leave to appear and defend suit
Suit for recovery of amount filed by respondent was decreed by the Trial Court
Regular First Appeal filed against judgment of the Trial Court having been dismissed by High Court, petitioner had filed petition for leave to appeal against impugned judgment of High Court
Petitioner was directed to furnish security equal to the suit amount as well as the written statement
Petitioner partly complied with the order as regarded the written statement, but failed to furnish requisite security and it was at a much belated stage that petitioner made an application for extension of time
Petitioner could not be considered to be oblivious of other part of the order granting conditional leave directing him to furnish security
Findings recorded by the High Court as well as by the Trial Court, were unexceptionable
Even otherwise it was not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The suit of the respondent, under Order XXXVII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., for recovery of Rs.11,70,000 was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 6-8-2001. The petitioner preferred R.F.A. No.691 of 2001 which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide impugned judgment, dated 13-11-2001. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the conditions mentioned in the leave granting order, dated 5-10-2000. Therefore, he had filed a written statement only. The failure to furnish security as required by the trial Court was on account of misperception and want of knowledge which ought to have been condoned. As soon as he became aware of the conditional leave granting order, he made an application for extension of time but the same was declined by the trial Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the available record. We find that by order, dated 5-10-2000, the petitioner was directed to furnish security equal to the suit amount as well as the written statement. The petitioner partly complied with the order as regards the written statement but failed to furnish requisite security. It was at a much belated stage that he made an application for extension of time. He could not be considered to be oblivion of the other part of the order granting conditional leave directing him to furnish security. The findings thus, recorded by the High Court as well as by the trial Court are unexceptionable. Even otherwise, this is not a' fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./A-36/SC Leave refused.