Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 162 and 163, of 1969, decided on 11th June 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 11th April 1969, in Civil Revision No. 57 of 1969).
---
---O. XXXVII & S. 15 Summary suit‑Can be instituted in Lahore both in Court of District Judge or Court of Senior Civil Judge‑Both Courts have concurrent, jurisdiction unaff ected by S. 15 of Code.
Syed Munir Hussabi Shah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Harnid Aslain Qureshi & Company, Attorneys for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 11th June 1969.
The respondent Bank has instituted separate suits against the petitioners in the Court of the District Judge, Lahore, for payment of Rs. 79,634/50 and Rs. 41,568/5 on the basis of promissory notes. As the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure were attracted, the trial Court gave permission to defend the suits on the con dition of furnishing security for payment of the amounts in suits. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners moved the High Court iii revisional jurisdiction on the contention that the defence dis closed by them attracted Rule 3 (i) of Order XXXVII which provides that :‑
"3.‑(i) The Court shall, upon, application by the defendant, give leave to appear and to defend the suit, upon affidavits which disclose such facts as would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration, or such other facts as the Court may deem sufficient to support the application."
The learned Chief Justice who dealt with the revision petitions in the High Court found that the plea that the petitioners had hypothecated goods against the sums advanced to them on the basis of the promissory notes was on its face incorrect and that the pleas taken up in defence were mala fide.
The other ground that the suit was not properly instituted in the Court of the District Judge was also ruled out as under the amended rules suits falling under Order XXXVII, C. P. C. in Lahore can be instituted both in the Court of District Judge o the Court of the Senior Civil Judge. The two Courts thus have concurrent jurisdiction which is not affected by the rule laid down in section 15 of the Code that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the District Judge complained to by it on examining the record.
We concur in the view which has prevaild in the High Court and see no proper ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Judge in requiring the petitioners to furnish security as condition for giving them leave to defend the suits:
The prayer for special leave to appeal in both the eases Is disallowed and the petitions are dismissed.
Leave refused:
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer