1992 PLP 1705 (CLC)

Mian Sarfraz‑ul‑Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1991. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revisions Nos.1500/91, 1501/91, 1502/91 and 1503/91, as they arise under similar circumstances.

2. Muhammad Alam, respondents in all these petitions riled four separate suits for recovery of money against the petitioner on the basis of promissory notes under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the District Court, Faisalabad, which were entrusted for trial to the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.

3. After having served with summons in the prescribed form, the petitioners applied for leave to appear and defend the suit which was contested by the respondent. By means of the impugned order dated 31st of July, 1991, the petitioners were granted leave to appear and defend the suit subject to depositing of 1/2 of the suit amount or furnishing bank guarantee in the aforesaid amount. These orders have been challenged by filing these petitions.

4. Chaudhry Abdul Rahman Cheema, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that it stands admitted on the record that the petitioner was never given any amount in cash but instead he was working as a Foreman of the respondent and was made to sign the promissory notes under coercion and undue influence. On these premises, it is argued that there was no justification for the Additional District Judge to have imposed the condition of depositing of 1/2 of the suit amount or furnishing bank guarantee, while granting the leave. Mian Sarfraz‑ul‑Hassan, the learned counsel for the respondent, has, however, defended the impugned order.

5. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is even otherwise clear from the contents of the application for leave to appear and defend the suit, that the petitioner has admitted his signature on the promissory note and the execution thereof. Under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there is a presumption that the promissory note is made or drawn for consideration. As the petitioner had admitted the execution of the promissory note, in the circumstances of the case, the trial Court was justified in granting conditional leave to appear and defend the suit. However, the condition as regards the depositing of half of the amount in cash or furnishing of bank guarantee appears to be harsh and unjust. The ends of justice shall be better served by furnishing security instead of cash deposit or bank guarantee. As a result of what has been stated above, all the revision petitions are partly accepted and the impugned orders are modified to the extent that instead of furnishing bank guarantee or depositing of one‑half of the amount in cash, the petitioner shall furnish security to the satisfaction of the trial Court as a condition to the grant of leave.to appear and defend the suit. The security shall be furnished within one month, i.e. by or before the 28th of October, 1991, failing which the application for grant of leave shall be deemed to have been dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑56/L Order accordingly.