2010 PLP 1152 (CLC)
MAQSOOD AHMAD — Appellant Versus Malik MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1152 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAQSOOD AHMAD — Appellant Versus Malik MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1152 (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 2010 PLP 1152 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1152 (CLC) (MAQSOOD AHMAD — Appellant Versus Malik MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3
Suit for recovery of amount on basis of pro note
Trial Court granted the defendant permission to appeal and defend the suit subject to submission of surety bond
Defendant neither submitted his written statement nor furnished the surety bond as required by the Trial Court
Trial Court proceeded ex parte against the defendant
Defendant filed an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings, but absented from the proceedings and the application moved by the defendant for setting aside of ex parte proceedings was dismissed and the Trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff
Defendant by not submitting the surety bond, had grossly violated the order passed by the Trial Court
Counsel for the defendant could not point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and decree
Conduct of defendant having remained lethargic throughout, he was not entitled for any concession
Appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMD TARIQ, J.
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.100,000 under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. on the basis of pro note executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent. On 14-11-2008, learned trial Court granted the petitioner permission to appear and defend the suit subject to submission of surety bond in the sum of Rs.100,
000. The learned trial Court further directed the petitioner to furnish surety bond on or before 27-11-2008 but the petitioner/defendant neither submitted his written statement nor furnished the surety bond as required by the learned trial Court. On 12-12-2008, the learned trial Court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner/defendant. Against the said ex parte order, the defendant filed an application on 24-2-2009 for setting aside ex parte proceedings but later on he absented from the proceedings and the application moved by the defendant for getting aside ex parte proceedings was dismissed in default on 3-7-2009. The case was adjourned for recording of ex parte evidence of the plaintiff/respondent on 9-7-2009 and after recording of evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24-8-2009 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Hence this regular first appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the petitioner was unheard by the learned Additional District Judge Pakpattan who misread the evidence and totally gave weightage to the respondent's evidence, which is against natural justice. It has been further contended that the petitioner version cannot be recorded through filing leave to defend the suit and the learned Additional District Judge has failed to decide the case without assigning reasons in the judgment and decree dated 24-8-2009. Learned counsel further contends that the judgment and decree is perverse, based on inadmissible evidence and has been passed in the absence of the petitioner. He has placed reliance on 1926 PC 142.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner has not submitted the surety bond till today and has grossly violated the order dated 14-11-2008 passed by the learned trial Court. Further, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and decree. The conduct of appellant remained lethargic throughout and thus, he is not entitled for any concession. This R.F.A. is devoid of merit; hence dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-195/L Appeal dismisse