Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 2, 2 & 4

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 159

Case Summary The appellant challenged the order refusing leave to appear and defend and the subsequent ex parte decree passed in a summary suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 CPC for recovery of Rs. 2,500,000 based on a dishonoured cheque. The Trial Court had dismissed the appellant's application for leave to defend as time-barred, holding that it had been filed beyond the prescribed 10-day limitation period under Article 159 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and thereafter decreed the suit ex parte. The High Court found that the summons had not been served in the prescribed form and were not accompanied by a copy of the plaint, which is a mandatory requirement in summary suits. Consequently, the Court held that proper service had never been effected and the limitation period for filing leave to defend had not commenced. The appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a decision on the leave to defend application on merits. Tagline Ex parte decree in summary suit set aside where summons were not served in the prescribed form and without a copy of the plaint; limitation for leave to defend did not commence. ORDER; INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J:- Through the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 03.09.2024 (“Impugned Order”), passed by the learned Additional District Judge (West), Islamabad (“Trial Court”), whereby the application for leave to appear and defend the suit filed by the appellant was refused. The appellant has also assailed the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2024, passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby suit under Order XXXVII, Rule II, CPC for recovery of Rs.2,500,000/- filed by the respondent was decreed as ex parte. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII, Rule, II, CPC for recovery of Rs. 2,500,000/- against the appellant/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff stated that the appellant/defendant was running a mobile shop, who enticed him to invest amount in his business. After some time the appellant/defendant wound-up his business and rendition of the account was conducted between the…