2004 PLP 882 (SCMR)

Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th May, 2002. TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 11‑3‑2002 of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Regular First Appeal No.800 of 2002 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent filed on 6‑11‑2000 a suit under Order XXXVII, rule 2, C.P.C. for the recovery of Rs.16,96,927 with mark‑up. Summons were issued which were duly served upon the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for leave to defend on 21‑11‑2000. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 27‑11‑2000. Leave to defend was granted to the petitioner on 12‑12‑2000 with a condition to file surety of the suit amount within one month. The petitioner assailed this order through Writ Petition No.25326 of 2000, which was dismissed in limine vide an order dated 2‑1‑2001, of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted surety bond before the trial Court which was rejected through an order dated 28‑7‑2001 as the same was not in accordance with the direction of the trial Court. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition bearing No. 14981 of 2001 against the order dated 28‑7‑2001 of the trial Court, which was also dismissed on 10‑8‑2001 by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court holding the said order as an interlocutory one. Subsequent to the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner again filed Civil Revision bearing No. 1940 of 2001, wherein exception was taken to the orders dated 12‑12‑2000 whereby conditional leave was granted subject to furnishing surety bond and order dated 28‑7‑2001 through which the learned trial Court refused to accept the surety bond. The value of the said property was Rs.7,00,000 as compared to the amount of suit which was Rs.16,96,927 as such learned trial Judge directed the petitioner to provide fresh surety alongwith the valuation certificate. This civil revision too was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the judgment dated 19‑2‑2001. After the dismissal of aforesaid civil revision, the learned trial Judge through his judgment dated 22‑9‑2001 decreed the suit of the respondent as the petitioner in spite of various opportunities failed to provide the surety. The petitioner filed Regular First Appeal No.800 of 2001 which has been dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court through the judgment dated 11‑3‑2002, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioner was granted leave to defend the suit subject to furnishing surety bond qua the suit amount on 21‑12‑2000. He unsuccessfully challenged this order before the High Court. Again he provided surety of the property hardly valuing Rs.7,00,000 while the suit amount was Rs.16,00,

000. This surety bond was also rejected by the trial Court on 28‑7‑2001. The petitioner assailed this order before the High Court which was dismissed in limine on 2‑1‑2001. A perusal of the decree passed by the learned trial Court demonstrates that the petitioner's conduct was very much contumacious. He tried not to comply with the order of the learned trial Judge through different tactics and ultimately the learned trial Judge had no option but to decree the suit as the petitioner failed to comply with the direction. The learned trial Judge gave the petitioner sufficient time to comply with his earlier direction. The petitioner, on the contrary instead of complying with the same, unnecessarily involved the respondent in this uncalled for litigation. His conduct as determined by the trial Court was certainly contumacious and no illegality whatsoever has been committed by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in dismissing the appeal through the impugned judgment. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being without any merit is dismissed and leave declined. M.H./M‑623/S Petition dismissed.