2006 PLP 646 (SCMR)
YASIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MASOOD-UR-RAUF — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 646 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | YASIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MASOOD-UR-RAUF — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 646 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 646 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 646 (SCMR) (YASIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MASOOD-UR-RAUF — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Rafiq Rajwana, Advocate Supreme Court with C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th January, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 27-6-2002 passed in R.F.A. No.197 of 2002 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench).
O. XXXVII, R.3 & O.XLI, R.5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Appeal against decree passed in suit for recovery of amount of dishonoured cheques
High Court suspended operation of decree subject to furnishing by appellant-Bank guarantee equal to decretal amount
Appellant had not denied issuance of cheques of different amounts on different dates
High Court had not committed illegality in passing impugned order
Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against an interim order of the Lahore High Court whereby suspending the operation of the impugned decree the learned High Court directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee equal to the decretal amount.
2. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioner issued four cheques on different dates whereby he agreed, to pay Rs.48,11,000 in toto. These cheques were presented by the respondent but the same were dishonoured because of the deficit amount in the account. The respondent in the circumstances was constrained to file an application under Order XXXVII, rule 3, C.P.C. The learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, through his judgment dated 16-5-2002 decreed the suit as the petitioner was denied his right to defend the suit in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner filed R.F.A. No.197 of 2002 taking exception to the aforestated decree whereby learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court admitted the appeal on 13-6-2002 and thrashing the entire record through the impugned order, dated 27-6-2002 directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee equal to the decretal amount. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The issuance of cheques of different amounts on different dates have not been denied by the petitioner. We do not want to dilate much on the issue as R.F.A. is pending adjudication in the Lahore High Court and any observation made by this Court may prejudice the case of the either A party. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the issuance of cheques is admitted, no illegality has been committed by the learned Division Bench in passing the impugned, order. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and the leave refused. S.A.K./Y-14/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.