1975SCMR393 (PLP)
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.-Petitioner Versus TAYAB SHARIF-Respondent
| Citation | 1975SCMR393 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and |
| Parties | MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.-Petitioner Versus TAYAB SHARIF-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975SCMR393 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975SCMR393 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975SCMR393 (PLP) (MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.-Petitioner Versus TAYAB SHARIF-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G. H. Malik, Advocate instructed by S. M. Hanif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 14th March 1975.
- G. H. Malik, Advocate instructed by S. M. Hanif, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan dated 20-9-1974 in Suit No. 28 of 1974). -- O. XXXVII, r. 3(2)-Leave to defend.-Imposition of conditions for leave to defend-Not always necessary-Matter one of discretion of Court and depends upon facts and circumstances of each case-High Court finding bona fide allegation of a triable issue prima facie made out and granting unconditional leave to defend-Order held neither unjustified nor unreasonable-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court refused.
Judgment & Decree
G. H. Malik, Advocate instructed by S. M. Hanif, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 14th March 1975. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court granting unconditional leave to defend in a suit under Order XXXVII, C. P. C. for the recovery of Rs. 64,985.72 on the basis of a promissory note: In this case, the grounds on which leave to defend was sought was that the money was not advanced on the personal security of the drawer of the promissory‑note but on the pledge of goods by delivery to the petitioner‑Bank of the documents of title to the goods, namely, bills of lading and insurance policies in the name of the petitioner‑Bank ; that the goods covered by these documents were far in excess of the advament made and that the goods had actually been cleared by the plaintiff‑Bank the port of destination which was Chittagong. It was the bank that had thereafter failed to account for the goods to the petitioner or to give credit for the price of the goods to the respondent. On this plea the High Court thought that prima facie, a bona fide allegation of a triable issue had been raised and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to unconditional leave to defend. The petitioner‑Bank now seeks special leave to appeal and it has been contended on its behalf that in a suit under Order XXXVII on the basis of a promissory‑note the respondent should have been granted leave to defend only on depositing the amount in Court or, at least, furnishing security for the claim. We are unable to agree. This was eminently a fit case for grant of, leave and no just exception can be taken to the grant of leave to defend by the High Court. Whether conditions should have been imposed or not was in the discretion of the High Court and depended on the facts and no circumstances of the case. The facts of this case if true, raised the plea of the debt being fully satisfied. In this view of the matter the grant of unconditional leave cannot be said to be unjustified or unreasonable. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.