SULTAN MAHMOOD vs MESSRS OMAR SONS LTD. Co
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, which had upheld a decree passed against the petitioner in a summary suit. The respondents had filed Suit No. 196 of 1968 for the recovery of Rs. 64,649.28 under the summary procedure provisions. The petitioner was granted conditional leave to defend the suit upon furnishing security but failed to comply with the court's directions despite being granted extensions on multiple occasions. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing further time to furnish security and subsequently decreeing the suit. The Supreme Court held that the courts below had granted sufficient time and that the discretion exercised by the Single Judge was proper. The Court found no evidence that the Nazir had illegally refused the security. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that a party who fails to comply with conditional leave to defend within reasonable extensions granted by the court cannot seek further indulgence as a matter of right.
- Can a defendant who fails to furnish security within the extended time granted by the court challenge the subsequent decree?
- Is the exercise of discretion by a Single Judge in granting time to furnish security subject to interference if sufficient opportunities were provided?
- Does the failure to furnish security as a condition for leave to defend justify the passing of a decree in a summary suit?
- Order XXXVII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The respondents brought Suit No. 196 of 1968 for recovery of Rs. 64,649.28 under Order XXXVII, rule 2, C. P. C. On the original side of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench. The petitioner resisted the suit on the ground that the promissory note was without consideration. He was, therefore, granted leave to defend the suit on furnishing security. He failed to furnish security and the suit was decreed against him on the 31st March 1969. The petitioner challenged this order in Letters Patent Appeal No. 83 of 1969 and requested the Appellate Court for grant of further time for furnishing secu--rity. This request was turned down by Letters Patent Bench on the 13 May 1969. They held that the learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion vested in him properly. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
2. The petitioner, who has appeared in person, has contended that he has produced the surety but the same was not accepted by the Nazir of the High Court. He has further prayed that be may be permitted to furnish Bank Guarantee in the decretal amount. The contention of the petitioner has no force. The record of the case shows that on the 10th February 1969, time for furnishing security was extended for one month. On the 3 March 1969 time for furnishing security was extended for a further period of one week. In this way, the petitioner was given time for furnishing security at least on three occasions. It is, there-, fore, quite clear that the Courts below have granted sufficient time to the petitioner to furnish security in the amount claimed by the respondents. The Letters Patent Bench, therefore, was perfectly justified in holding that the Judge on the Original Side has exercised deprecation properly There Is no proof on the record that the Nazir of the High Court has illegally refused to accept the security furnished by the petitioner. No such comp--laint was made to therd High Court. The order of the High Court, therefore. Is not open to exception. The petition is dismissed.