Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs Rana MUHAMMAD SARWAR
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld a money decree of Rs. 3,00,000 passed against the petitioner. The respondent had initiated a recovery suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on a pronote. The trial court granted the petitioner conditional leave to defend, requiring the furnishing of security equivalent to the claimed amount. Despite multiple adjournments, the petitioner failed to provide the security, leading the trial court to decree the suit due to non-compliance with the conditional leave. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully in conditioning the leave to defend upon the provision of security. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's decision was legally sound, as Order XXXVII, Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 expressly empowers courts to grant leave to defend subject to terms, including the payment into court or giving security. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Does a court have the authority to grant leave to defend a summary suit subject to the condition of furnishing security?
- Can a suit be decreed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a defendant fails to comply with the conditions imposed for leave to defend?
- Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXVII Rule 3(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---Haji Muhammad Siddique seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3-6-2002 passed by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court whereby his regular first appeal against the want of a money decree of Rs,3,00,000 by learned Additional District Judge, Okara on 6-6-2001,was dismissed.
2. Rana Muhammad Sarwar, the respondent had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs,3,00,000 against the petitioner under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. For, the claim was based on a pronote dated 4-8-1998. The defendant/petitioner was granted leave to defend and file written statement subject to furnishing security to the tune of the amount claimed. The defendant sought numerous adjournments for furnishing the security but failed to do so and hence the suit was decreed on account of the non- compliance of the conditional leave to defend.
3. The provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 3 sub-rule (2) of C.P.C. Clearly lay down and empower the Court to grant leave to defend either unconditonally or subject to such terms as to payment into Court or giving security. The demand of the Court for furnishing security was thus not unlawful and was even not objected to by the petitioner/defendant who sought various adjournments to arrange for the security. In the circumstances, the decree was rightly passed by the learned Additional District Judge and rightly upheld by the High Court. There being no valid reason for us to interfere, the petition is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL ALEEM BUTT vs Messrs BAHRIA FOUNDATION 2015 CLC 1144