1989 PLP 183 (MLD)
JAVED IQBAL‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 183 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalid Paul Khawaja, J |
| Parties | JAVED IQBAL‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 183 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 183 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalid Paul Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 183 (MLD) (JAVED IQBAL‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Aslam for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O. XXXVII, Rr. 2(2), 3 and S. 96‑‑Leave to appear and defend suit granted conditionally‑‑Suit decreed on failure to fulfil the condition‑‑Appeal against‑ Appellant contended that leave to defend suit was granted to appellant subject to furnishing of Bank guarantee, but due to fraud and misrepresentation of respondent, appellant could not furnish Bank guarantee and as a result of which Trial Court straightaway decreed suit‑‑Appellant further contended that Trial Court could not straightaway pass a decree in case, but should have recorded evidence before passing decree‑‑Appeal admitted to regular hearing subject to deposit of decretal amount by appellant in Trial Court within 15 days. Malik Muhammad Saeed v. Mian Muhammad Sadiq 1985 M L D 1440 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Yar. P L D 1987 Lah. 101 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Saeed v. Mian Muhammad Sadiq 1985 M L D 1440 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Yar. P L D 1987 Lah. 101 ref. Malik Muhammad Aslam for Appellant. It is contended that leave to deferred the suit was granted to the appellant subject to the furnishing of bank guarantee but due to the fraud and misrepresentation of the respondent the appellant could not furnish the said bank guarantee as, a result of which the learned trial Court straightaway decreed the suit. It is further contended that the trial Court could not straightaway pass a decree in the present case and should have recorded evidence before passing the said decree. Reliance is placed on Malik Muhammad Sated v. Mian Muhammad Sadiq (1985 M L D1440), and Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Yar (P L D 1987 Lah. 101).
2. The appeal is admitted to regular hearing subject to the condition that the appellant deposits in the trial Court the decretal amount within 15 (lays. I R.F.A. be listed in the 2nd week of February, 1989. C. M.1 of 1989 Execution proceedings, if any, are stayed if the above condition is fulfilled by the appellant. H.B.T/J‑41/L Appeal dismissed.