Summary trial

2025 PLD 53 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

First Sched., Art. 159Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3Suit for recoverySummary trialApplication for leave to defend, filing ofLimitationSpecified time of 10 days, commencement ofScopeService upon the defendantTrial Court, responsibility of

On failure of the defendant to file leave to defend application, the Trial Court passed ex-parte judgment and decree; later, Trial Court dismissed the defendant's application under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C. read with S. 12(2), C.P.C., seeking to set aside the original judgment and decree

Validity

Article 159 of the Limitation Act, 1908 mandates a period of ten (10) days for submitting a leave to defend application in a suit governed by the summary procedure outlined in O. XXXVII of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Said period commences from the date of service of the summons

Order XXXVII, R. 2, C.P.C., explicitly outlines the procedure for summons, requiring it to be served in Form No.4 of Appendix B, which coincides with the 10-day period stipulated in Art. 159 of Limitation Act, 1908; significance of both the contents and language of Form No.4 necessitates that the party served with the summons has 10 days from the date of service to submit its Leave to Defend Application

In the present case, according to the relevant Diary (Order) Sheet, the service upon the appellant/defendant was held good based on the report of bailiff

However, said report revealed that Appellant was served on such date that the ninth (9th) day (from date of service by bailiff) was next date of hearing i.e. before the full 10-day period as provided by law would have elapsed

When a statute grants a defendant a statutory right to seek leave of the Court within a specified time frame (in the present case 10 days from the receipt of the summons), it establishes a clear procedural safeguard

Trial Court is expected to respect and uphold this statutory provision

By waiting for the expiration of the stipulated period before taking any action, the court ensures that the defendant has a reasonable opportunity to exercise his legal rights and present his defence

In the absence of such a waiting period, a defendant's ability to avail himself of the statutory right is compromised

Striking off the defence of a defendant before the expiration of the specified time frame undermines the fundamental principles of fairness and due process inherent in legal proceedings

In the present case, the Trial Court unfairly and prematurely deprived the appellant of his statutory entitlement to seek leave within the prescribed period, by curtailing it by just one day, thereby impeding his ability to mount an adequate defence

Under Rr. 2 & 3 of O. XXXVII, C.P.C., proceedings are summary; failure of the defendant to apply for defence within 10 days of service leads to a deemed admission of allegations in plaint, which may in turn result in a decree

Court must ensure the defendant is served and comprehends the proceedings; hence, the Legislature mandated specific forms for the plaint and summons

Therefore, it is imperative for a court to exercise caution and patience in such matters, refraining from striking down the defence of a defendant ahead of time

By allowing the statutory period to run its course, a Court ensures that the defendant's rights are fully respected and that the legal process proceeds in a manner consistent with the principles of justice and equity

High/Appellate Court set-aside the ex-parte impugned judgment and decree and the dismissal order of the Appellant's application (seeking setting aside of the original impugned judgment and decree) with the direction that the appellant shall file his leave to defend application in the suit within ten (10) days from today

Appeal, filed by defendant, was allowed accordingly.

2025 PLD 53 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3Suit for recoverySummary trialApplication for leave to defend, filing ofLimitationSpecified time of 10 daysScopeService upon the defendantTrial Court, responsibility of

On failure of the defendant to file leave to defend application, the Trial Court passed ex-parte judgment and decree; later, Trial Court dismissed the defendant's application under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C. read with S. 12(2), C.P.C. seeking setting aside of the original judgment and decree

Validity

In the present case, according to the relevant diary (order) sheet, the service upon the appellant/defendant, based on the report of bailiff, was held good by the Trial Court

However, simultaneously and paradoxically, in the same order (date on which service was held good) as well as on the following date (which was also the date on which the appellant was barred from filing Leave to Defend application and his defence was struck off), the Trial Court directed the respondent/plaintiff to file courier receipts and acknowledgment of delivery ("AD")

Thus, it was apparent that the Trial Court considered the service as valid despite the absence of essential documents (like courier receipts and AD)

Said anomaly raised significant concerns and called into question the thoroughness and reliability of the Trial Court's evaluation of service validity

High Court set-aside the ex-parte impugned judgment and decree and the dismissal order of the appellant's application (seeking setting aside of the original impugned judgment and decree) with the direction that the appellant shall file his leave to defend application in the suit within ten (10) days from today

Appeal, filed by defendant, was allowed accordingly.

2020 MLD 758 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7 & 21-LCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 87 & 88Summary trialAppreciation of evidencePunishment for absconder

First Information Report was lodged against accused persons for qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd and rioting armed with deadly weapons

Trial Court acquitted accused persons but absconding accused was convicted and sentenced to various counts of imprisonment in summary proceedings

Validity

No charge was framed against absconding accused under S. 21-L of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and no evidence was recorded to prove ingredients of S.21-L of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Trial Court also failed to formulate a point for determination regarding offence under S.21-L of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in judgment

No evidence was available to show that absconsion of accused was intentional and no finding was recorded by Trial Court to effect that absconding accused was fugitive of law

Trial Court in a cursory manner convicted and sentenced accused under S.21-L, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and procedure adopted by Trial Court in convicting and sentencing accused under S. 21-L of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was illegal

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

1963 PLD 46 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Summary trial

Evidence-Register of summary trials showing only "Ditto" entries, purporting to say that evidence in relevant case was same as evidence in case above-Trial, held to be "no trial" and so vitiated-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 263.

1963 PLD 725 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 264 & 265 read with Ss. 262 & 263-Summary trial-No necessity of framing formal charge irrespective whether sentence is non-appeal-able or appeal-able.

1958 PLD 440 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Summary trial -Offence committed by Government servant whether and when can be tried summarily-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 260-Pakistan Penal Code (XGV of 1860), S. 323.