MLD
2000
Civil Revision No. 1732 of 1995, decided on 26th January, 2000.
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUJRAT (MIAN NISAR HUSSAIN) and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore
PCRLJN
2018
2016-November-10
ZAHEER AFZAL CHATHA — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Director-General and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore
PLD
1951
Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1951, decided on 23rd July 1951.
JAHANDAD KHAN‑Appellant Versus CROWN‑Respondent
Court:
(PRIVATE) LTD. through Director — Plaintiff Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS
Court: Sindh
PLD
1957
Privy Council Appeal No. 35 of 1954, decided on 8th December 1954 from Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.
KURUMA‑Appellant Versus THE QUEEN‑Respondent
Court:
PLD
1959
Criminal Revision No. 602 of 1958, decided on16th December 1958, case reported by the District Magistrate Shahpur at Sargodha.
ANWAR MAHMOOD and others‑ — Petitioners Versus RASHID‑UZ‑ZAMAN‑ — Respondent
Court:
CLD
2023
merits after recording of evidence---Validity---Appellant/defendant was allowed to defend the suit but the relevant order was itself conditional for fulfillment of which a date was fixed by the Trial Court---Inbuilt directions given in the order for fulfillment of the condition in the shape of furnishing of a security bond on the next date, had bound down the appellant to pursue the suit and to defend it through his written-statement but in case when the condition had not been fulfilled, the consequence thereof would be borne by the party who failed to comply with the order of the Court or to fulfill his obligation---Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provided a specific procedure for cases wherein the person against whom the lis was filed was required to get permission from the Court to defend the suit---It was not disputed that the validity and propriety of the order granting leave to defend had not been questioned by the appellant to the extent of condition of furnishing security bond and in such circumstances, the fulfillment of condition was prerequisite for further progress in the suit and his participation in proceedings in order to defend the suit against him---Provision of O. XXXVII, R. 3 of the C.P.C., 1908, with regard to filing of the application along with affidavit for grant of such leave was mandatory and failure thereof would result into a decree against the defendant even without recording of evidence in the matter---Order sheet revealed that the appellant despite availing several opportunities had not fulfilled his part of obligation in shape of furnishing a security bond as per directions of the Trial Court---No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances
AKBAR ALI — Appellant Versus HIDAYAT ULLAH — Respondent
Court: Peshawar (Mingora Bench)
PLD
2023
merits after recording of evidence---Validity---Appellant/defendant was allowed to defend the suit but the relevant order was itself conditional for fulfillment of which a date was fixed by the Trial Court---Inbuilt directions given in the order for fulfillment of the condition in the shape of furnishing of a security bond on the next date, had bound down the appellant to pursue the suit and to defend it through his written-statement but in case when the condition had not been fulfilled, the consequence thereof would be borne by the party who failed to comply with the order of the Court or to fulfill his obligation---Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provided a specific procedure for cases wherein the person against whom the lis was filed was required to get permission from the Court to defend the suit---It was not disputed that the validity and propriety of the order granting leave to defend had not been questioned by the appellant to the extent of condition a furnishing security bond and in such circumstances, the fulfillment of condition was prerequisite for further progress in the suit and his participation in proceedings in order to defend the suit against him---Provision of O. XXXVII, R. 3 of the C.P.C., 1908, with regard to filing of the application along with affidavit for grant of such leave was mandatory and failure thereof would result into a decree against the defendant even without recording of evidence in the matter---Order sheet revealed that the appellant despite availing several opportunities had not fulfilled his part of obligation in shape of furnishing a security bond as per directions of the Trial Court---No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances
AKBAR ALI — Appellant Versus HIDAYAT ULLAH — Respondent
Court: High Court
PLD
1953
Privy Council Appeal No. 7 of 1952, decided on 11th May, 1353, from the Supreme Court of Ceylon.
GOVINDAN SELLAPPAH NAYAR KODAKAN PI LLAI‑Appellant Versus PUNCHI BANDA MUDANAYAKE AND OTHERS‑ Respondents
Court:
PLC
2021
Writ Petition No.7788 of 2020, decided on 3rd July, 2020.
ROHAIL RIZWAN QURESHI Versus GLOBE COSMETICS COMPANY through M.D.A. and others
Court: Lahore High Court (Multan Bench)
