HUSSAIN vs RAJAB ALI
This civil revision petition arises from a suit based on a pronote, where the defendant sought leave to defend, alleging the instrument lacked consideration and was executed as security for 'Watta' marriages. The trial court, while noting the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act, found the defense vague but nonetheless granted conditional leave to defend upon the deposit of Rs. 20,000. The petitioner challenged this condition as contradictory and excessive. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were indeed self-contradictory, as the defense lacked sufficient substance to warrant leave under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. However, the Court affirmed that once a trial court exercises its discretion to grant conditional leave, it possesses the jurisdiction to impose conditions, including the deposit of the suit amount. The Court emphasized that trial judges must strictly verify whether a case genuinely falls under the requirements of Order XXXVII, Rule 3 before granting leave to defend, and dismissed the revision petition as the petitioner had no valid grievance against a conditional concession.
- Does the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 apply to a suit based on a pronote?
- Can a court impose conditions, such as a monetary deposit, when granting leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a revision petition competent against the exercise of judicial discretion in imposing conditions for leave to defend?
- Section 118, Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
- Order XXXVII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' The respondent's suit is based upon a pronote. The defendant filed an application supported by an affidavit, for permission to defend the suit on the ground that the pronote in question is without consideration and it was written as a security for Watta marriages.. The learned Additional District Judge who was seized of the matter held that the execution of the pronote being admitted a presumption arises that under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that negotiable, instrument was made or drawn for consideration. He also held that the defence set up by the defendant is vague and unsatisfactory. Despite this, after making an observation that the matter needed to be investigated into, he granted permission to the defendant to appear and defend the suit on his depositing a sum of Rs, 20,000 within for weeks from that day.
ORDER
' The respondent's suit is based upon a pronote. The defendant filed an application supported by an affidavit, for permission to defend the suit on the ground that the pronote in question is without consideration and it was written as a security for Watta marriages.. The learned Additional District Judge who was seized of the matter held that the execution of the pronote being admitted a presumption arises that under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that negotiable, instrument was made or drawn for consideration. He also held that the defence set up by the defendant is vague and unsatisfactory. Despite this, after making an observation that the matter needed to be investigated into, he granted permission to the defendant to appear and defend the suit on his depositing a sum of Rs, 20,000 within for weeks from that day.
2. The learned counsel submitted that on one hand the learned Court has held that the matter required investigation, after which he should have unconditionally granted permission to the defendant to defend the suit and on the other hand he has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs, 20,000 which amounts to passing a decree at this stage in regard to that amount. He further submitted that the petitioner should have been directed at most to furnish security.
3. I agree with the learned counsel that the findings of the learned Additional District Judge are self contradictory. This was not a fit case for according any permission to the defendant in view of the clear provisions of rule 3 of Order XXXVII, C. P. C. Which provides that "the Court shall, upon application by the defendant, give leave to appear and defend the suit, upon affidavits which disclose such facts as would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration or such other facts as the Court may deem sufficient to support the application". It is therefore, clear that in a case where it is not incumbent upon the holder of the pronote to prove consideration the permission to defend cannot be given unless there are other facts which are deemed sufficient by the Court to support the application. There are no other facts which could be deemed sufficient to support the application. There being no ground for grant of permission it looks strange that the petitioner who has been granted a concession should feel aggrieved against the order of imposition of condition.
4. The other argument of the learned counsel, is not correct. Once a Court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires consideration, but the matter is not clear, the Court has the jurisdiction to make a conditional order. Haji Karim and another v. Zikar Abdullah (1). This is a matter within the discretion of the Court. The Court could make an order of deposit of even Rs, 35,000 i,e, the entire money in suit. No revision is competent against the exercise of discretion. The petition is, therefore, without force for this reason too and is dismissed.
5. I may, however, strike a note of caution to the learned District Judges and Additional District Judges that 'While granting permission they should find out as a matter of fact whether the case is really covered by rule 3.
' A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Additional District Judge.
(1) 1973 SCM R 100
Cited by 8 cases
- PAKISTAN MOLASSES COMPANY vs AHMED INVESTMENT (PVT.) LIMITED 1999 CLC 1920
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs ABDUR REHMAN 1996 MLD 291
- Hard MU14AMMAD AFZAL vs ABDUR REHMAN 1996 MLD 291
- S. B. INDUSTRIES PAK. LTD. vs SUI NOTHEREN GAS 1995 PLD Lahore 117
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs HOECHST PHARMACEUTICAL PAKISTAN (Pvt.) Ltd. And Other 1989 MLD 171
- BALAKAMOON KHAN vs Syed GULREHMAN SHAH AND 2 Other 1987 PLD Peshawar 21
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 66
- PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA) vs Messrs 2003 CLD 392