Pakistan Case LawM. ASHRAF PARWAZ Versus Prof. ASGHAR ALI NAAZ
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the High Court, which upheld the trial court's decree in favor of the respondent. The respondent had filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the refund of a security deposit amounting to Rs. 30,000 deposited upon his appointment as a college principal. The petitioner failed to seek leave to appear and defend within the prescribed period and his belated application was dismissed as time-barred, supported by an inadequate medical certificate. The core legal question concerned whether leave to defend a summary suit could be granted upon a time-barred application without satisfactory explanation, and whether refund of security could be withheld pending a separate recovery suit. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly dismissed the time-barred application and that the respondent's undisputed security refund should not be delayed pending the outcome of the petitioner's separate embezzlement suit. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a belated application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit can be entertained without a satisfactory explanation and proper medical coverage for the relevant period?
- Can the refund of a security deposit, admitted to be refundable upon the termination of employment, be withheld pending the outcome of a separate recovery suit filed by the employer?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII, Civil Procedure Code, against the petitioner essentially for the refund of security in the sum of Rs,30,000 which he had deposited with the latter at the time of his appointment-as principal of a college administered by him. The petitioner did not seek leave to appear and defend the suit within the prescribed period. Subsequently, he filed a belated application in this regard which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The trial Court then decreed the suit of the respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court, but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2.There is no satisfactory explanation why the petitioner did not seek leave to appear and defend the suit within the prescribed period. The medical certificate which he filed before the learned District Judge did not cover the relevant period. The District Judge was therefore right in not entertaining his application in this regard on the ground of limitation.
3.In support of this petition it is alleged that the respondent owed to the petitioner a large sum of money which he had embezzled and that the petitioner had filed a suit against him for the recovery of the same. This may be so, but the petitioner has yet to establish that the respondent had embezzled the money belonging to the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner does not dispute that he had obtained Rs,30,000 by way of security from the respondent which was refundable to the latter on the termination of his employment. It does not seem appropriate in the circumstances of this case that the respondent should be made to wait in seeking refund of the security amount till the suit filed by the petitioner is decided. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAFAR IQBAL Versus APCO 1998 CLC 1133
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Muhammad Rafiq Tarar605 judgments
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments