Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLD 3239 = 2026 SHC 307
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision Application No. 143 of 2025, Civil Revision Application No. 134 of 2025
Presented By: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author)
21.01.2026 Mr. Junaid Alam Khan, advocate for applicant in Revision 143/2025 and respondent No.1 in revision 134/2025 Mr. Muhammad Younus, advocate for respondent 2 in Revision 143/2025 and respondent No.4 in revision 134/2025 Ammar Shahid/respondent No.1 in Revision 143/2025 and applicant in Revision 134/2025

M/s IS Builders & Developers & Others

VS

Ammar Shahid & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: Order XXXVII (37)

Summary The case arose from cross civil revision applications challenging an order granting conditional leave to defend in a summary suit based on dishonoured cheques. The plaintiff argued that leave to defend should not have been granted, while the defendants challenged the requirement to furnish security of Rs. 42 million. The High Court held that only the three dishonoured cheques payable to the plaintiff could form the basis of summary proceedings, whereas claims relating to another beneficiary ("Hamna Properties"), damages, injunctions, and settlement of accounts required a regular civil trial. Accordingly, the Court modified the conditional leave order by reducing the security amount to Rs. 8,452,116, representing the value of the three dishonoured cheques, and directed the defendants to furnish security within two weeks. Sections Used Background Facts Trial Court Order Parties' Arguments Court's Analysis Findings Final Order Sections / Laws Used Order XXXVII (37), Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Two-Word Description Dishonoured Cheques Conditional Leave       Order Sheet M/s. IS Building & Developers, Muhammad Rana Shahryar and Irfan Mangnejo/defendants, are aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Malir, Karachi (hereinafter referred to, interchangeably as the “1st ADJ” or trial Court” as the case may be), granting conditional leave to defend in Summary Suit No.74/2024 subject to furnishing solvent surety or bank guarantee certificate in the sum of Rs.42,000,000/-, whereas, Ammar Shahid/plaintiff of the said summary suit, is aggrieved by the same order on the ground that the Court should not have granted conditional leave to defend, and ought to have straightaway passed judgment and decree against the defendants. The brief facts of the case are that Ammar Shahid had initially entered into an oral agreement whereby he had obtained certain share in a partnership, which partnership was ultimately dissolved vide agreement dated 18.01.2023. As per the said agreement, sums of money were acknowledged as outstanding and payable by Muhammad Rana Shahryar and Irfan…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register