Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 148 & O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2 (2)--Limitation Act, 1908, S. 5--Suit for recovery on the basis of an alleged pronote--Application seeking leave to appear and defend the suit was allowed subject to furnishing security equals to the suit amount--Defaulted in furnishing surety with specific period--Defence be struck off and the suit be decreed--Trial Court observed that delay in furnishing security was condonable--Validity--Greater always includes lesser and if trial judge had mandate to direct furnishing of security within a period of time, he had the authority to extend time u/S. 148, C.P.C.--Held: All procedural laws are framed for advancement of justice and to take cause to logical end for and against the litigating parties--Technicalities cannot be allowed to operate as tyrant masters so as to smother and frustrate the genuine claims--Provisions of S. 148, CPC were consciously invoked by trial Court whereby delay was condoned on the application of defendant--Provisions of S. 5 of Limitation Act, had been made applicable to the proceedings of suit tried summarily u/O. XXXVII, Rule, 3(3), CPC. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 99--Appellant did not challenge the impugned orders when he has lost his suit after full-dress trial--When the plaintiff/appellant had no case on merits--Being so, the findings of trial Court could neither be varied nor reversed nor interfered within any manner vide Section 99 of CPC. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.- Muhammad Asghar plaintiff/ appellant had on 09.02.2002 filed a suit under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 & 2, CPC for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- on the basis of an alleged Pronote dated 03.06.2000. 2. Muhammad Hussain defendant/respondent moved an application under Order XXXVII Rule 2(2), CPC seeking leave to appear and defend the suit which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur by order dated 20.04.2002 subject to furnishing security equals to the suit amount within seven days otherwise it was directed that his application would stand dismissed. Vide order 13.11.2002 the learned trial Judge observed that the delay in…