Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2 , 3 , 129(e)

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2 & 3---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(e)---Suit for recovery of money on the basis of cheque---Application for leave to defend--Conditional order, non-fulfillment of---Judicial proceedings---Presumption of truth--Scope---Leave to defend was granted by the Trial Court with condition to furnish security bond---Trial Court decreed forthwith the suit against the appellant/defendant on his failure to furnish security bond---Contention of the appellant/defendant was that he was unaware of the fact for furnishing security bond---Validity---Record revealed that a clear condition of furnishing security bond with specific reference of the date for its compliance was unambiguous and explicit therein but even then for about nine and half months the proceedings remained pending adjudication before the Trial Court and the appellant had never intended to fulfill such direction---Contention of the appellant regarding ignorance regarding conditional order could not be given preference because the presumption of truth is attached to the judicial proceedings---Plea of ignorance of law could not be construed or sustained as a bona fide excuse---Provision of the Art. 129(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided presumption of regularity to all acts performed in a judicial proceedings---No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Ameen and another v. Jawaid Ali and 5 others 2017 YLR Note 429; Zaman and 2 others v. Muhammad Khan 2017 YLR 353; Fayyaz Hussain v. Akbar Hussain and others 2004 SCMR 964 and Muhammad Ramzan v. Lahore Development Authority, Lahore 2002 SCMR 1336 ref.