Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXVII,.2,3

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3---Suit for recovery of money on the basis of cheque and promissory note---Affidavit filed by the defendant with his application for leave to defend the suit had not disclosed necessary facts to prove "prima facie" "plausible defence", therefore it would be inferred that affidavit was not in accordance with the provisions of O.XXXVII, R.3, C.P.C.---Contention of the defendant was' that Court had directed him to file written, statement and adopted the other procedure---Held, suit was filed by the plaintiff under O.XXXVII, R.2, C.P.C. and a special procedure had been provided in the said provision, to be followed in suits instituted upon bill of exchange, hundies or promissory notes---Where the defendant had defaulted in obtaining prescribed leave for his appearance for defending the suit and application for leave to defend the suit was not allowed by the court then no option was left with the court but to decree the suit without recording of evidence otherwise object of speedy and summary trial could be defeated---If the Court, without adverting to the special procedure provided under the law, had directed the defendant to file written statement and thereafter adopted valid and required procedure, it had not committed any illegality---Principles. Haji Ali Khan & Co., Abbottabad and 8 others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Abbottabad PLD 1995 SC 362; Fine Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Haji Umar PLD 1963' SC 163; Mian Rafiq Saigol and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. and another PLD 1996 SC 749; Messrs National Security Insurance Company Limited and others v. Messrs Hoechst Pakistan Limited and-others 1992 SCMR 718 and Ch. Maqsood Ahmed v. Khalid Pervaiz 1990 CLC 1536 ref. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 21-6-2007, passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, in R.F.A. No.57 of 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff, respondent herein, had filed suit for recovery of Rs.4,50,000 under Order XXXVII, rule 2, C.P.C. averring in the plaint that defendant-petitioner had purchased a…

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