Permission to appear and defend is required in Order XXXVII Suit
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a dispute over an unpaid loan documented through a pro-note, where the lender filed a special summary suit for recovery of Rs. 100,000 under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, a procedure used for quick recovery of money on negotiable instruments like promissory notes.
The trial court initially allowed the borrower to defend the suit, but only on condition that he submit a surety bond for the amount claimed by a set deadline. The borrower failed to file his written statement or provide the surety bond, so the court proceeded against him ex-parte, meaning without his participation. He later tried to get this ex-parte order set aside but did not pursue that application diligently either, and it was dismissed for non-appearance. The trial court then recorded the lender's evidence alone and ruled in his favor, decreeing the suit.
The borrower appealed to the Lahore High Court, arguing he was never properly heard and that the judgment unfairly relied only on the lender's evidence. The High Court rejected this appeal, noting that the borrower had never complied with the original condition to furnish a surety bond and had been consistently negligent throughout the proceedings. Finding no legal or jurisdictional flaw in the trial court's decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal outright.
The case illustrates that courts will not reward parties who ignore procedural requirements and conditions attached to their right to defend a case, especially in summary suits designed for speedy resolution of debt claims.
یہ مقدمہ ایک غیر ادا شدہ قرض سے متعلق تھا جس کی دستاویزی حیثیت پرو نوٹ کے ذریعے موجود تھی۔ قرض دہندہ نے سول پروسیجر کوڈ کے آرڈر 37 کے تحت ایک خصوصی سمری سوٹ دائر کیا، جس میں ایک لاکھ روپے کی وصولی کا مطالبہ کیا گیا۔ یہ طریقہ کار خاص طور پر پرو نوٹ جیسی قابلِ انتقال دستاویزات پر مبنی رقوم کی فوری وصولی کے لیے استعمال ہوتا ہے۔
ٹرائل کورٹ نے ابتدائی طور پر مقروض کو مقدمے کے دفاع کی اجازت دی، مگر اس شرط کے ساتھ کہ وہ ایک مقررہ مدت کے اندر دعویٰ کردہ رقم کے برابر ضمانتی مچلکہ (شیورٹی بانڈ) جمع کرائے۔ مقروض نہ تو اپنا تحریری جواب دائر کر سکا اور نہ ہی ضمانتی مچلکہ پیش کر سکا، چنانچہ عدالت نے اس کے خلاف یک طرفہ کارروائی کرتے ہوئے فیصلہ کیا، یعنی مقروض کی شرکت کے بغیر۔ بعد میں اس نے اس یک طرفہ حکم کو کالعدم قرار دلوانے کی کوشش کی، مگر اس درخواست کی پیروی میں بھی سنجیدگی سے ک
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2011 Lahore 126 Present: Ch. Muhammad Tariq , J. MAQSOOD AHMAD--Petitioner versus Malik MUHAMMAD AFZAL--Respondent R.F.A. No. 301 of 2010, decided on 31.3.2010. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O. XXXVII, Rr . 2 & 3--Suit for recovery on basis of pro-note--Permission to appear and defend the suit was granted subject to submission of surety bond--Neither written statement submitted nor surety bond was furnished--Ex- parte proceedings was recorded--Application for setting aside ex- parte decree was dismissed--Assailed--Validity--Petitioner did not submit the surety bond and had grossly violated the order passed by trial Court--Appellant could not point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned judgment and decree--Conduct of appellant remained lethargic throughout--Not entitled for any concession--Appeal was dismissed. [P. 127] A Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Jalal , Advocate for Appellant. Date of hearing: 31.3.2010. Order The respondent filed a suit for recovery, of Rs . 100,000/- under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. on the basis of pro note executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent. On 14.11.2008, the learned trial Court granted the petitioner permission to appear and defend the suit subject to submission of surety bond in the sum of Rs . 100,000/-. The learned trial Court further directed the petitioner to furnish surety bond on or before 27.11.2008 but the petitioner/defendant neither submitted his written statement nor furnished the surety bond as required by the learned trial Court. On 12.12.2008, the learned trial Court proceeded ex party against the petitioner/defendant. Against the said ex party order, the defendant filed an application on 24.02.2009 for setting aside ex party proceedings but later on he absented from the proceedings and the application moved by the defendant for setting aside of ex party proceedings was dismissed in default on 03.07.2009. The case was adjourned for recording of ex party evidence of the plaintiff/respondent on 09.07.2009 and after recording of evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.08.2009 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Hence this regular first appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the petitioner was unheard by the learned Additional District Judge Pakpattan who misread the evidence and totally gave weightage to the respondent's evidence, which is against natural justice. It has been further contended that the petitioner version cannot be recorded through filing leave to defend the suit and the learned Additional District Judge has failed to decide the case without assigning reasons in the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2009. Learned counsel further contends that the judgment and decree is perverse, based on inadmissible evidence and has been passed in the absence of the petitioner. He has placed reliance on 1926 PC 142.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner has not submitted the surety bond till today and has grossly violated the order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the learned trial Court. Further, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and decree. The conduct of appellant remained lethargic throughout and thus, he is not entitled for any concession. This RFA is devoid of merit; hence dismissed in limine . (R.A.) R.F.A. dismissed.