Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 3 , 96

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXVII, R. 3 & S. 96---Suit in summary jurisdiction based on negotiable instrument:-.Defendant's. application for leave to appear and defend suit was rejected on sole ground that affidavit attached with application for leave to defend suit had not been attested---Validity---Defendant had been burdened with a decree of specified amount merely because affidavit on the application was not attested---Application to defend suit should not have been rejected of such flimsy ground---Impugned decree, therefore, was not sustainable in law, which was set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court for affording opportunity to defendant to get his affidavit attested, and thereafter, to consider application for leave to defend on merits. Emirates Bank International v. United Exports Limited and 8 others PLD 1993 Kar. 661 rel. Sultan Khan Jadoon for Appellant Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1996. JUDGMENT The respondent Fida Hussain who was present on the last date is absent despite notice having been personally served   upon him. Placed ex parte. ' This is an appeal by Sardar Abdur Rehman defendant against whom the learned District Judge, Mansehra had passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.22,000 on 12-6-1994. under Order 37, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. on one and the only ground that the affidavit on petition for leave to defend dated 17-5-1994 had not been attested. The leave to defend was refused. The mode of disposal resorted to by the learned District Judge was even faster than the summary procedure. provided under Order 37, C.P.C. The summary powers are always given to experienced judicial officers so that the justice is imparted speedily without doing injustice. While rejecting the petition for leave to defend the learned District Judge became unmindful of the fact that the defendant…