Mian MUHAMMAD AMJAD AMIN vs Rana BASHIR AHMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's regular first appeal against a decree passed in a recovery suit. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court and the High Court were justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for leave to appear and defend the suit on the ground of it being barred by time, given the petitioner's contradictory stances regarding illness and service of the plaint. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his alleged illness or explain his belated approach with consistent evidence, and thus no illegality was committed by the High Court in dismissing the appeal. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking condonation of delay or challenging a procedural default in filing an application for leave to defend under summary procedure must maintain a consistent stance and provide reliable, corroborative material to substantiate claims of incapacity or lack of proper service.
- Whether a defendant's application for leave to defend a summary suit can be rejected as time-barred when the defendant takes contradictory stances regarding illness and the receipt of the plaint?
- Is a medical certificate that contradicts the dates of illness pleaded in an application for leave to defend sufficient to establish valid grounds for condoning delay?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dismissal of an appeal against a summary decree where the defendant failed to explain a belated approach?
- Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 27-1-2003 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed R.F.A. No,794 of 2002 filed by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts, as reflected from the documents annexed with this petition, are that the petitioner who was doing some property business secured some amount from his close relative and executed a pronote therefor. He however, did not honour his commitment detailed in the pronote, whereupon the respondent was constrained to file a petition under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. The learned Additional District Judge, Lahore through his judgment dated 30-10-2002 decreed the suit for a sum of Rs,4,17,500. R.F.A. Filed by the petitioner assailing the above judgment was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore through his judgment dated 27-1-2003.
Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that A the aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent on 16-3-2002 for the recovery of Rs,4,17,500. The petitioner was personally served on20-3-2002. He, however, filed an application for leave to appear and defend the aforesaid suit on 16-4-2002. The learned Additional District Judge, rejected his application filed by the petitioner being barred by time and took up ex parte evidence against him. A perusal of the documents further demonstrates that the petitioner has taken up wavering stances to cover up his belated approach before the learned Additional District Judge. There he put up his case that he could not file the application for leave to defend in time as he was unable to move from his bed from 8-3-2002 till 94-2002. Since he could not substantiate the same, as such it did not find favour with learned Additional District Judge. Before the High Court, the petitioner did not urge the ground of illness as noted by the learned Single Judge who further held that the petitioner did not bring any material on record to substantiate his indisposition. He took another plea that he was not provided with the copy of the plaint at the time of service of summons on 20-3-2002 which was given to him on 10-4-2002. This plea too was never agitated earlier. The medical certificate appended for the first time also does not support his case.
It is totally vague in nature and does not establish his case as taken up by him at the time of making the application to appear and defend. In the said application, as already stated, he mentioned his inability in moving from bed due to illness from 8-3-2002 till 9-4-2002. However, in the certificate he had been advised rest from 9-3-2002 till 22-4-2002. All the above-stated resume demonstrates that the petitioner has failed to explain his belated approach and no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in dismissing his R.F.A.
' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and .
Cited by 4 cases
- Haji Bashir Ahmad Ch vs Bashir Ahmad Deceased through L.Rs. Etc 2021 CLC 1696, 2021 LHC 1380
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED Versus SULTAN ALI J. LILANI 2015 CLD 759
- Rana JAHANGIR KHAN Versus MANZOOR AHMAD 2012 PLD 204
- JAVED HUSSAIN vs Raja SHABBIR WALI 2010 CLC 1184