Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3017 2016 SLD 3017 2016 CLC 1251
Sindh High Court

SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JJ
Haider Waheed for Appellant. Asim Iqbal along with Anas Makhdoom for
Respondent.

FARIDA SAEED......---Appellant

VS

KHURRAM ZAFAR......---Respondent

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908).......... ..........-O. XXXVIII, Rs.5, O.XII, R.6, O.XV & O.VII, R. 2..........-Suit for recovery of money..........Attachment before ..........Direction to furnish security equivalent to claimed amount..........Decree on basis of admission..........Principles..........Disposal of property at the first hearing..........Defendant admitted the receipt of the amount claimed by the plaintiff in the suit but denying her liability to pay the same taking certain defence as to the purpose of receiving the amount..........Trial court, while rejecting the plaintiff's claim for attachment before , decree on admission and deposit of the claimed amount, directed the defendant to furnish security equivalent to the claimed amount..........Validity..........Remedy to obtain on admission provided under O.XII, R.6, C.P.C. with the intent to shorten the litigation keeping in view that the facts admitted needed not to be proved..........Order XV, C.P.C. empowered the court to at once pronounce when the court came to the conclusion that the parties were not at issue..........Court might also consider partially decreeing the claim, where a portion of the claim had been admitted..........Law, however, had prescribed a very high test of considering the admission by providing that admission, on basis whereof claim could be decreed, should have been specific, clear, unqualified, unequivocal, unconditional, and admission which did not qualify such test could not be made basis of decree..........If an admission was of lesser value and the same did not qualify said test, then the court could not pass an order in the alternative, such as directing the defendant to furnish security or to deposit the claimed amount, as such, the order could be passed once the plaintiff would meet the pre-requisite of O.XXXVIII, C.P.C...........Unless the suit for recovery fell under a summary chapter, the concept of calling a party to furnish security for the suit amount was alien to the procedural law except in accordance with the provision of O.XXXVIII, C.P.C...........Order XXXVIII, C.P.C. provided for preventive action and equipped the court with ample power to direct…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492