Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 492 1993 SLD 492 1993 CLC 295
Lahore High Court
R.FAs. Nos. 22 and 23 of 1990, decided on 7th November, 1992. DATE of hearing: 28th October, 1992.
AUSAF ALI KHAN, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

BARADAR

VS

Haji MUHAMMAD RAFIQ

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: OXXXVII,R.2

Law: Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992

Section: 6(1),6(3),6(9)

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----OXXXVII, R. 2---Suit for recovery of amount in summary jurisdiction--­Defendants having been served failed to apply for leave to appear and defend suit within specified time---Decree in suit---Validity---Non-recording of complete evidence---Effect---Trial Court had given detailed reasons in support of its order after dealing with all the contentions raised by defendants who had appeared beyond the prescribed time and had failed to explain delay--­Defendants' explanation that language of notices being English, defendants who were illiterate could not know contents of such notices to comply with them was of no consequence for they could seek help of literates as also of the counsel whom they had engaged---Ignorance of law, however, would not furnish any excuse----Formality of recording complete evidence in summary suit was not essential for after leave was refused plaintiff was entitled to a decree as all allegations made in the plaint were deemed to be admitted---Decree granted by Trial Court in summary jurisdiction was thus valid. Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Yar PLD 1987 Lah. 101; Khalid Farooq and others v. Hakeem Nazar Muhammad 1979 SCMR 52 and S.M. Akil Fikree v. Muhammad Qamar-uz-Zaman PLD 1982 Kar. 745 ref. (b) Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act (III of 1992)--- ----S. 6 (1) (3) & (9)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXVII, R. 2---Plaintiff's claim was based on Peshgi which he on his own showing had advanced to defendants on their agreeing to execute bonded labour in making bricks at his kiln---Plaintiff chose to put his gloss upon the promissory note which when construed explicitly contained payment which fell within definition of Peshgi amounting to bonded debt---Plaintiff had expressed unambiguously that he wanted to run his kiln and thus, persuaded defendants to enter into agreement in the shape of pronote in lieu of consideration constituting Zar-e­Peshgi---Such agreement pronote fell within the mischief of Bonded Labour System, thus same could not be enforced as the obligations thereunder stood extinguished and even in a case where a decree had been passed for its payment, same would be deemed to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492