BASHUMAL vs Dr. ZAHOOR AHMAD SHEIKH
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a revision application by the High Court of Sindh, which had upheld a conditional order granting leave to defend a summary suit. The respondent had filed a suit for recovery of money under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and the trial court granted the petitioner conditional leave to defend upon furnishing security of Rs. 5,50,000. The petitioner failed to comply with this condition and sought to substitute the required security with a surety bond of Rs. 2,00,000 previously furnished in a separate criminal proceeding under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the civil suit and the criminal proceedings were distinct legal matters, and security furnished in a criminal bail application could not be utilized to satisfy the conditional requirement for leave to defend in a civil summary suit. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the failure to furnish the ordered security resulted in the suit standing decreed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
- Can security furnished in a criminal bail proceeding be utilized to satisfy a condition for leave to defend in a civil summary suit?
- What is the legal consequence of failing to furnish security as ordered by a court in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are civil recovery suits and criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered the same matter for the purpose of security deposits?
- Order XXXVII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 20-2-2007, whereby revision application filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII, rule 3, C.P.C. For recovery of Rs,5,38,600 against petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi South. Leave to defend the suit was granted vide order, dated 16-1-2007 conditionally on furnishing security in the sum of Rs,5,50,000 within 30 days of the order. The petitioner did not comply with the above order and filed revision application before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi for waiver of the condition of deposit of Rs,5,50,000. This revision application was dismissed as stated above. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record. His contention is that besides the above suit the respondent has also initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner under section 489-F, P.P.C. Wherein the petitioner was arrested and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on furnishing security in the sum of Rs,2,00,000. It has been submitted by learned Advocate-onRecord that petitioner has furnished surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 in pursuance of order of this Court dated 6-10-2006 and the said surety may be treated as security in this case. This contention is without any merit. Conditional leave to defend was granted to the petitioner on providing security in the sum of Rs,5,50,000. This case and the criminal case pending against the petitioner are two separate cases and the surety furnished by the petitioner in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 in pursuance of the order of this Court, dated 6-10-2006 for his release on bail cannot be treated as security in this case.
4. As a matter of fact, on failure of the petitioner to furnish security as ordered by the District Judge within the period of thirty days the suit in accordance with the provision of Order XXXVII, C.P.C.
Stood decreed. In the circumstances the question of accepting the surety furnished by the petition in his bail case as security in this case does not arise.
5. This petition is without any substance and is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.