2013 PLP 1471 (CLC)
Makhdoomzada ABDUL KARIM — Appellant Versus AJAB KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1471 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Makhdoomzada ABDUL KARIM — Appellant Versus AJAB KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1471 (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 2013 PLP 1471 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1471 (CLC) (Makhdoomzada ABDUL KARIM — Appellant Versus AJAB KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jamal Abdul Nasir for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXVII, R.2
Summary suit for recovery of money
Defendant-appellant was granted conditional leave to defend the suit by furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to the decretal amount of Rs.10,00,000 with two sureties but he failed to comply with
Trial Court was left with no alternative but to decree the suit and that too, to the extent of principal amount
Order was perfectly in accordance with law and based on correct legal footings and well-founded
Appeal was dismissed by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA J.
This regular first appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-3-2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV D.I. Khan, whereby the suit of the respondent Ajab Khan for the recovery of Rs.10,40,000/- has been decreed against the appellant Makhdoomzada Abdul Karim to the extent of principal amount, i.e. 10,00,000/-.
2. Facts of the case as narrated in the appeal in brief are that Ajab Khan plaintiff had instituted the suit against the defendant Makhdoomzada Abdul Karim for the recovery of Rs.10,40,000/- on the grounds enumerated therein. The defendant when was summoned by the trial court submitted an application for leave to defend but in the meanwhile he was arrested by the local police of police station City D.I. Khan in case F.I.R. No.146 dated 6-3-2012 under section 489-F, P.P.C. and thus was committed to jail. Thus he could not join the proceedings before the learned trial Judge who vide his order dated 13-3-2012 granted conditional leave to appear and to defend the suit subject to furnishing bank guarantee of equivalent amount, but when he failed to furnish the requisite bank guarantee, the suit of the respondent was decreed against the appellant to the extent of principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- vide judgment and decree dated 28-3-2012 which is now under challenge by the appellant through the appeal in hand.
3. Having heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 13-3-2012, the appellant was granted conditional leave to defend the suit by furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to the decretal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court within three days and the case was posted to 28-3-2012 for further proceedings. On the said date, the plaintiff and representative of the defendant were present and the latter again sought time for furnishing the requisite bank guarantee but he failed to do the needful and thus the learned trial Judge was left with no alternative but to decree the suit of the plaintiff and that too, to the extent of principal of amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The said order is perfectly in accordance with law and based on correct legal footings and well-founded. Therefore, the same being based on sound reasons needs no interference by this court.
4. As a result, I find no substance in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Cost shall follow the event. AG/202/P Appeal dismissed.