Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑66 of 1969, decided on 13th January 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, dated the 13th May 1969, in L. P. A. No. 83/1969).

O. XXXVII, rr. 2 & 3 Defendant granted leave to defend on furnishing security and time extended for purpose on three occasions‑Court, held, rightly exer cised its discretion in not granting further opportunity for furnishing security.

Petitioner in person.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing :13th January 1970.

The respondents brought Suit No. 196 of 1968 for recovery of Rs. 64,649.28 under Order XXXVII, rule 2, C. P. C. on the original side of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench. The petitioner resisted the suit on the ground that the promissory note was without consideration. He was, therefore, granted leave to defend the suit on furnishing security. He failed to furnish security and the suit was decreed against him on the 31st March 1969. The petitioner challenged this order in Letters Patent Appeal No. 83 of 1969 and requested the Appellate Court for grant of further time for furnishing secu rity. This request was turned down by Letters Patent Bench on the 13 May 1969. They held that the learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion vested in him properly. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.

The petitioner, who has appeared in person, has contended that he has produced the surety but the same was not accepted by the Nazir of the High Court. He has further prayed that be may be permitted to furnish Bank Guarantee in the decretal amount. The contention of the petitioner has no force. The record of the case shows that on the 10th February 1969, time for furnishing security was extended for one month. On the 3^rd March 1969 time for furnishing security was extended for a further period of one week. In this way, the petitioner was given time for furnishing security at least on three occasions. It is, there‑, fore, quite clear that the Courts below have granted sufficient time to the petitioner to furnish security in the amount claimed by the respondents. The Letters Patent Bench, therefore, was perfectly justified in holding that the Judge on the Original Side has exercised deprecation properly There Is no proof on the record that the Nazir of the High Court has illegally refused to accept the security furnished by the petitioner. No such comp laint was made to the High Court. The order of the High Court, therefore. is not open to exception. The petition is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.