Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: Order XXXVII Rule 2,7,10,O.VIII R. 10

Law: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section: 118

  Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)------O.XXXVII Rr. 2, 7, 10 & O.VIII R. 10--Negotiable Instruments Act, (XXVI of 1881), S. 118--Leave to defend--Written Statement was not filed--Non-denel of signatures--Order XXXVII Rule 2(2) of Code provides that defendant would not appear or defend suit unless he obtains leave from a judge--Defender of suit filed in summary jurisdiction first had to show a plausible defense--Once success was achieved in doing so, conditional or unconditional, leave could be granted--The appellant had never requested before Trial Court to treat his leave as written statement--Last opportunity was granted to appellant, at his specific requests. Fine was also imposed but all in vain--The right to file written statement was struck of--Signatures on cheque were had not been denied--Stamp-vendor, supported respondent as to issuance of stamp paper on which agreement was written--PW-5 appeared and deposed that he as a notary public verified agreement--High Court not found any mistake in impugned judgment and decree.Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)------O.VIII, R. 10--Non filing of written statement--Order VIII Rule 10 of Code, Provides that when any party from whom a written statement was required but party failed to file it, Court could make order in relation to suit as it thinks fit. [P. 357] CRef. PLD 1967 Lahore 779.2003 CLD 1003; 1993 CLC 1291; 2024 CLC 1184; 2002 MLD 696; 2004 CLC 384; PLD 1987 SC 22; 2002 CLD 624 ref.JUDGMENT:The respondent instituted suit dated 10.07.2019 (the ‘suit’) under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the ‘Code’), against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 16,20,000/-, with the averments that the appellant obtained loan from him and for repayment of the same cheque No. 31681794 dated 08.03.2019 (the ‘cheque’) was issued by the appellant, which was dishonored on presentation before the relevant bank. Leave was granted to the appellant on 06.08.2019, however, he failed to file written statement in spite of repeated directions by the learned trial Court, upon which he was proceeded against ex-parte. The evidence of the respondent was recorded and the learned trial Court…