AFTAB IQBAL KHAN KHICHI and another vs Messrs UNITED DISTRIBUTORS
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court of Sindh judgment and decree in a suit for the recovery of Rs. 29,84,704.20, filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The petitioners, who were defendants in the original suit, were granted conditional leave to defend, requiring them to furnish security within 30 days. The petitioners failed to furnish the required security, citing the defendant's absence from the country for Hajj as the reason for the failure to communicate with their counsel. Consequently, the High Court decreed the suit against them. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' absence abroad constituted a valid ground to excuse the failure to comply with the court's conditional order for security. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were fully aware of the ongoing litigation and had an obligation to make necessary arrangements for their defense before leaving the country. The Court emphasized that the law assists the vigilant and not the indolent, refusing to absolve the petitioners of their responsibility due to their absence.
- Does a defendant's absence from the country for religious purposes constitute a valid excuse for failing to comply with a court's conditional order to furnish security?
- Is a party to a lawsuit obligated to make arrangements for their defense before proceeding abroad?
- Can a defendant who fails to comply with the conditions for leave to defend under Order XXXVII C.P.C. seek relief from a resulting decree based on personal absence?
- Order XXXVII, C.P.C.
- Order XXXVII, rule 3, C.P.C.
ORDER
' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Sindh dated 1-9-1996 whereby a suit for the recovery of Rs,29,84,704.20 instituted by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendants was decreed.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners/defendants and respondent/plaintiff entered into an agreement where it was agreed that the respondent/plaintiff would supply to the petitioners/defendants company pesticides at Vehari. In August 1990 the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant company under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. For the recovery of Rs,29,84,704.20 in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi. Under Order XXXVII, rule 3, C.P.C. The petitioner/defendant sought leave to defend the suit and also moved an application for the return of the plaint, but both the applications were dismissed vide order dated 11-12-1995.
3. The case of the petitioner is that on 10-4-1996 he proceeded to Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj and while he was still abroad when on 5-5-1996 leave to defend was granted subject to the condition that the plaintiff should furnish security for the said amount within 30 days. It is further contended that the petitioner could not be contacted by his lawyer and, therefore, the security could not be furnished and hence the High Court vide order dated 1-9-1996 passed _ judgment and decree impugned for Rs,29,84,704.20 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner: It was also contended before us that in fact the amount is exaggerated one and it was a case of settlement of accounts inasmuch as substantial amount was due from the respondent/plaintiff to the petitioner/defendant, but the same had not been taken into consideration.
4. We have carefully examined all the facts of the case, but we are afraid that no case warranting interference by this Court is made out. The petitioner fully knew factum of the institution of the suit and had also made various applications therein and, therefore, it was obligatory upon him to make necessary arrangements for the defence of the suit while proceeding abroad. The petitioner cannot be absolved of his responsibility on the mere pretext that he was not present in the country.
The law helps the vigilant and not the indolent. In this view of the matter, we do not find- any substance in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 19 cases
- M/s Ali Sher Traders vs Commissioner Inland Revenue etc 2025 LHC 4279
- ALI SHER TRADERS Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Zahid Shafiq , Malik Itaat Hussain Awan 2025 PTD 1429
- Muazzam Ali Goraya etc vs Member (Judicial-I) etc 2025 LHC 323
- MUAZZAM ALI GORAYA Versus MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) 2025 CLC 1217
- Syed Ali Kazmi vs Government of Punjab and others 2023 LHC 4856, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 985
- Rizwan Ali Sayal vs Federation of Pakistan and others 2023 LHC 5587, 2024 PLD Lahore 54, 2024 PTD 32
- Dr. Aftab Hassan Minhas vs National Council for Homeopathy etc. 2023 LHC 4805, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 84
- Musarrat Bivi vs Additional District Judge, Bhowana and another 2024 YLR 652
- Sahibzada Haroon Ali Syed vs Additional District Judge and others 2022 PLJ Lahore 984
- Sahibzada Haroon Ali Syed vs Additional District Judge and others 2023 MLD 2073
- Rana Muhammad Ilyas vs Lahore Electric Supply Company and others 2021 PLC 75
- Gaman and others vs Mureed Hussain and others 2020 MLD 1211
- Messrs MATRACON PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized Co-ordinator 2019 CLC 1732
- KHALID JAVED PARACHA Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID 2017 YLRN 210
- HAJI Versus Mst. SAINDINI 2017 YLRN 307
- Syed ZAWAR HUSSAIN vs Syed RIAZUL ABBAS SHERAZI 2015 MLD 890
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR ABBAS Versus MUHAMMAD ZAFAR 2010 CLC 689
- ZUBAIR AHMAD and another Versus SHAHID MIRZA and 2 others 2004 MLD 1010
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs Syed INTIZAR ABBAS ZAIDI 2004 CLC 389