Find a Lawyer

Regular First Appeal No. 22 of 1983/BWP, decided on 30th March, 1983.

‑‑O. XXXVII, rr. 2(2) & 7‑‑Grant of leave to defend suit subject to depositing amount in dispute by appellant within stipulated period‑‑Appellant failing to deposit said amount within such period‑Pro visions of r. 7, held, of no help to appellant in circumstances‑ District Judge, held further, can decree suit without recording respondent's evidence in support of his claim.

Qumar Hamid Hashmi for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 26th March, 1983.

The facts giving rise to this regular first appeal are that respondent, Noor Muhammad filed a suit against the appellant, Allah Yar, for re covery of Rs. 10,000 on the basis of a promissory note. This suit was filed under rule 2 of Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code and was heard by the District Judge, Bahawalpur. The appellant sought leave to defend the suit which was granted by the learned District Judge subject to his depositing the amount in dispute. The appellant did not deposit the] said amount within the stipulated period. The learned District Judge, therefore, after having observed that the leave to defend the suit "stands refused", passed a decree for the recovery of Rs. 10,000 against the appellant with costs. He has, therefore, come up in appeal to this Court.

2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that even after the appellant did not have the leave to defend the suit, the learned District Judge was obliged to record the respondent's evidence in support of his claim but since he had failed to do so, the judgment and decree passed by him were not sustainable. According to him, a suit filed under Order XXXVII cannot be decreed on the short ground that leave to defend the suit has not been granted to the defendant or that if the leave is subject to any condition, the condition is not satisfied. He relied on rule 7 of Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure to main tain that the procedure for suits brought under the said Order is the same as applicable to the other suits. He also invited my attention to rule 2 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure whereunder the party having the right to begin is required to produce evidence on the date fixed for hearing of the suit.

3. According to rule 7 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Pro cedure, the procedure prescribed for ordinary suits is applicable to the suits under the said Order to the extent to which its application is not expressly or impliedly excluded by any provision of the above Order. It has been laid down in sub‑rule (2) of rule 2 of Order XXXVII that where the defen dant does not obtain leave to defend the suit brought under the said Order, the allegations in the ‑plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. This means that when leave is not obtained by the defendant, the suit against him can be decreed without holding any further proceedings in the suit. To my mind, the consequences of the defendant's failure to seek leave are the same as those of the Court's refusal to grant leave, when asked for, or the defendant's failure to comply With the condition on which the leave is granted. Having said in so many words in sub‑rule (2) that the defendant who fails to obtain leave will be deemed to have admitted allegations in the plaint and the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree, it could not be the intention of the Legislature to oblige the Court to record evidence of the plaintiff in support of his allegation before passing a decree in his favour. In certain cases, even the suits instituted in the ordinary manner can be decreed without recording any evidence. The provisions which permit such a course are contained in clause (a) of sub‑rule (1) of rule 6 of Order IX and rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The object behind all these provisions is to ensure quick disposal of cases in which the de fendant is not really interested in resisting the suit. The special provisions set out in sub‑rule (2) of rule 2 of Order XXXVII for deciding suits, under the said Order in which leave to defend is not obtained, by implication, exclude the application of general provisions made in rule 2 oft Order XVIII in relation to recording of evidence in ordinary suits. I 1n this view of the matter, provisions of rule 7 of Order XXXVII are of no help to the appellant.

4. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that since the appellant did not have the leave to defend the suit, the learned District Judge could decree the suit against him without recording the respondent's evidence in support of his claim. Resultantly; this appeal fails. It is dismissed in limine.

M. Z. M. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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