2004 PLP 866 (SCMR)

MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.‑‑‑By this common judgment we propose to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.2285‑L and 2286‑L of 2002 as they involve identical questions of law and facts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19‑6‑2001, the petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.39,50,000 against the respondent under Order XXXVII, rule 2, C.P.C. before the Learned District Judge. Lahore, alleging therein that the petitioner is a businessman under the name of Lahore Building Material Store at Chah Miran, Lahore and the respondent is also a businessman and deals in cement. It was averred in the plaint that about two years prior to institution of the suit the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000 from the petitioner and issued post‑dated Cheque No.44286407 and thereafter he borrowed a sum of Rs.27,50,000 from the petitioner and handed over Cheque No.44286408 to him, both dated 26‑9‑1999 in favour of the petitioner and drawn on Allied Bank, Ichhra Branch, Lahore which were payable after three months. After the lapse of the said period the petitioner presented the cheques before the said Bank for encashment but the same were dishonored. The petitioner contacted the respondent for repayment of the borrowed amount but the respondent initially postponed the repayment and finally refused to do so, as such, the petitioner instituted the above suit. The respondent was served and on his behalf Syed Saqlain Jafry, Advocate filed memo of appearance but thereafter did not appear, as such, he was proceeded ex parte.

3. Ex parte evidence of the petitioner was recorded and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit vide his judgment dated 6‑7‑2001. The petitioner filed execution petition and during its pendency, the respondent filed following four applications:‑‑ (i) Under Order XXXVII, rule 4 read with Order IX, rule 13 and section 151, C.P.C: for setting aside ex parte decree dated 26‑7‑2001. (ii) Under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for suspension of operation of the ex parte decree. (iii) Under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. (iv) Under Order XXXVII, rules 2 and 3, C.P.C. for leave to appear and defend the suit. All the above applications were dismissed by the executing Court vide its order dated 4‑3‑2002.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the above order, the respondent filed Civil Revisions Nos.876 and 877 of 2002 which were admitted to regular hearing and operation of the order impugned therein was suspended vide order impugned herein.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. The civil revisions filed by the respondent have been admitted to regular hearing and are pending decision before the learned High Court.

6. The impugned order being interlocutory does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

7. Consequently, these petitions being devoid of any merit are dismissed and leave refused. M.H./B‑79/S Petitions dismissed.