Mian AHSAN EHSAN vs Mian MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's Regular First Appeal against a decree passed under the summary procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner had been granted conditional leave to defend a suit for recovery, requiring him to file a written statement and furnish security for the suit amount. The petitioner complied with the requirement to file a written statement but failed to furnish the security. Upon the trial court's refusal to extend the time for furnishing security, the petitioner challenged the decree. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's failure to comply with the conditional leave order due to alleged lack of knowledge warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not be considered oblivious to the conditional order and that the lower courts' findings were unexceptionable. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that failure to comply with conditional leave orders justifies the dismissal of the defense.
- Does a failure to comply with a conditional leave to defend order in a summary suit justify the dismissal of the defense?
- Can a court refuse to extend time for furnishing security in a summary suit where the defendant failed to comply with the initial conditional order?
- Order XXXVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXVII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The suit of the respondent, under Order XXXVII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., for recovery of Rs,11,70,000 was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 6-8-2001. The petitioner preferred R.F.A. No,691 of 2001 which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide impugned judgment, dated 13-11-2001.
Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the conditions mentioned in the leave granting order, dated 5-10-2000. Therefore, he had filed a written statement only. The failure to furnish security as required by the trial Court was on account of misperception and want of knowledge which ought to have been condoned. As soon as he became aware of the conditional leave granting order, he made an application for extension of time but the same was declined by the trial Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the available record. We find that by order, dated 5-10-2000, the petitioner was directed to furnish security equal to the suit amount as well as the written statement. The petitioner partly complied with the order as regards the written statement but failed to furnish requisite security. It was at a much belated stage that he made an application for extension of time. He could not be considered to be oblivion of the other part of the order granting conditional leave directing him to furnish security. The findings thus, recorded by the High Court as well as by the trial Court are unexceptionable. Even otherwise, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.