1991 PLP 1341 (CLC)
Haji ATTA MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL RASHEED ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1341 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Haji ATTA MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL RASHEED ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1341 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1341 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1341 (CLC) (Haji ATTA MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL RASHEED ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Basit Baber for Appellant.
- Ch. Manzoor Ahmad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ OXXIII, R.3 & OXXXVII, R.3 ‑‑‑ Suit for recovery of money in summary jurisdiction ‑‑‑ Defendant's application for permission to appear and defend suit‑‑ Plaintiff, before decision of such application, offering to be bound by the statement on oath of 'M' on the factum of recovery of money ‑‑‑ Such statement was accepted by defendant‑‑‑'M' making statement in Court that he had no knowledge whether plaintiff had lent money to defendant or not ‑‑‑ Court on statement of 'M' decreed plaintiffs suit ‑‑‑ Validity ‑‑‑ Statement made in Court by defendant regarding oath to be taken by 'M' was very much ambiguous‑‑ Statement of 'M' made in Court likewise was not definite and clear ‑‑‑ Trial Court instead of decreeing suit on ambiguous statement should have proceeded to decide defendant's application for permission to appear and defend suit‑‑ Judgment and decree of Trial Court was set aside and case was sent back for fresh decision in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Manzoor Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th March, 1991. On 21‑2‑1989, Abdul Rashid respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.1,00,000 on the basis of Promissory Note against Atta Muhammad appellant in the Court of District Judge, Bahawalpur, Summons in accordance with Form‑IV of Appendix B, C.P.C. was issued. Within ten days of the service of the summons the petitioner mov6d an application for permission to appear and defend the suit.
2. Before this application could be decided, it so happened that on 27‑1‑1990, the plaintiff made a statement before the trial Court to the effect that:‑
The appellant/defendant accepted this statement/offer. He stated that:‑
So, Mustaqeem was summoned by the Court. He appeared on 11‑2‑1990 and made following statement on the Holy Ouran:‑
On the basis of this statement of Mustaqeem, the learned District Judge decreed the suit with costs, on the same day, hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel submits that not only the statement made by defendant/petitioner accepting the offer made by the plaintiff and the statement made by Mustaqeern were ambiguous and as such, the suit could not have been decreed straightaway more particularly when the case was at the stage of permission to appear and defend the suit. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment on the ground that since Mustaqeem had not stated that the claim of the petitioner was false, so the suit was rightly decreed by the trial Court.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I rind that on 27‑1‑1990, the case was till at the stage of the consideration of the prayer of the petitioner/defendant for leave to defend the suit. The statement of petitioner/defendant recorded by the trial Court was very much ambiguous. Similarly, the statement made by Mustaqeem which has been reproduced above was not definite and clear. This being the position, I feel that instead of decreeing the suit on ambiguous statement, the trial Court should have proceeded to decide the application of the petitioner/defendant for permission to appear and defend the suit. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside and the case is sent back for fresh decision in accordance with law leaving the parties to bear their own costs. AA./A‑1332/L Appeal accepted.