Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 2 , 3

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----OXXXVII, Rr.2 & 3---Suit for recovery of amount on basis of Promissory Note---Leave to defend suit  Power vested in Court to grant leave to defend suit, with or without condition, was unfettered  No hard and fast rules could be prescribed  for  exercise  of  such  discretion  Discretion, however, was to be exercised by Court judicially keeping in view facts and circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner  Defence set up by defendant in suit, not being plausible or incontrovertible, no justification existed for granting unconditional leave to defend suit. Syed lkramur Rehman Shah for Applicant. S. Ali Ahmed Tariq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd March, 3991. JUDGMENT The applicant filed suit against the respondent under Order 37, rule 2 C.P.C. for recovery of Rs.80,096.C0. The respondent filed application for leave to defend, which has been granted unconditionally by order dated 10-12-1989. The said order has been assailed by the applicant on the   ground that no reasons have been given for granting leave without any condition. Mr. Ali Ahmed Tariq, appearing for the respondent, has stated that the respondent, in his affidavit, had taken several grounds, wherein he challenged the jurisdiction of the Court at Karachi and also a plea was taken that the applicant was paid in excess of the amount due and payable by the respondent. The learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, has contended that several cheques issued by the respondent were not honoured by his bankers. It is contended that while promissory note was being prepared the respondent was informed of the amount due against him which was written on the top of the blank draft of the promissory note. The blank draft was taken away by the respondent to verify the amount payable by him as he disputed the quantum of the amount due. The respondent after verification of the amount due executed the acknowledgment receipt and the promissory note for Rs:75,000 to be due and payable and promising to pay the said amount on demand or order. 1n reply to the above contentions, Mr. Tariq argued…