Find a Lawyer

Civil Suit No. 420 of 1984, decided on 9th October, 1985.

‑‑Ss. 39 & 54‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.V., r.20‑ Cancellation of forged documents‑‑Injunction‑‑Recovery of money suit for‑‑Ex parte decree‑‑Defendant avoided service of summons‑‑Ultimately substituted service was effected on defendant by publication of notice in two newspapers‑‑In spite of such public notice defendant remained absent‑‑There being no opposition and no contest to claim in suit filed by plaintiff, although service was held good on defendant, suit for recovery of money, cancellation of documents and injunction was decreed ex parte with costs as prayed for in circumstances.

Shamsuddin K. Jatoi for Plaintiff.

This suit has been filed for a relief of cancellation of documents and injunction restraining the defendant from using those documents to his Advocate, and also a relief for the recovery of Rs.9 lac in cash.

The facts of the case as elaborated in the affidavit of ex parte proof filed by the plaintiff are as follows:

The defendant is a merchant carrying on car business and he wanted some finance for his business. The plaintiff obliged him by advancing a sum of Rs.20 lacs, to be utilised in the business. According to the affidavit of the plaintiff he borrowed Rs.10 lacs from one Qaisar Muhammad to make the total of Rs.20 lacs which he paid to the defendant. This amount remained outstanding for payment against the defendant for quite sometime. Then after sometime, the defendant agreed to sell Mazda Wagons to the plaintiff of the value of Rs.4,50,000. This amount was adjusted against the loan which was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. He also paid a sum of Rs.5,50,000 to one Qaiser Mehmood from whom the plaintiff had borrowed Rs.10 lacs in order' to pay to the defendant in May. In this way out of Rs.20 lacs Rs.10 lacs have been recovered and a balance of Rs.10 lacs remains to be paid. The defendant has made a further payment of Rs.1,25,000 which is also to be adjusted towards his liabilities leaving a balance of Rs.8,75,000.

He, however, executed two promissory‑notes Annexures 'G' and 'F' to the plaint, dated 28‑8‑1981. This gesture of executing the promissory‑notes in the sum of Rs.10 lacs, although the balance was Rs.8,75,000 was to show bona fide by the defendant, but the defendant is not taking any advantage of this position and has confined his claim only to Rs.9 lacs in the suit.

Instead of making the payment which had become due long before and which were also supported by the two promissory‑notes mentioned above, the defendant approached Martial Law authorities with two forged documents. One was an agreement purporting to be an acknowledgment of liability of the plaintiff and four others in the sum of Rs.42 lacs. The other was a forged receipt bearing the forged signature of the plaintiff. The Martial Law authorities summoned the plaintiff and threatened of dire consequences if the plaintiff did not pay the amounts under these forged documents. The plaintiff approached higher Martial Law authorities and succeeded in getting rid of these proceedings which the defendant had lodged with the local Martial Law authorities.

The plaint now contains a relief for cancellation of these documents and also for an injunction that the defendant should not take advantage of these forged documents which are annexed with the plaint as Annexurps 'H' and 'I'.

This suit was filed on 24‑6‑1984 and summons were issued to the defendant. For obvious reasons the defendant avoided service and ultimately a substituted service was effected on the defendant by publication of the notice in two newspapers namely, 'MORNING NEWS' dated 25‑11‑1984 and Daily 'MASHRIQ', dated 25‑11‑1984. In spite of this public notice the defendant remained absent and the service has been held good by the Additional Registrar by his order, dated 17‑12‑1984. This matter has been coming for ex parte decree against the defendant in the circumstances stated above.

Mr. Shamsuddin K. Jatoi, learned counsel for the plaintiff is present in Court with his client and, has filed the ex parte proof of the plaintiff praying for the reliefs claimed in the plaint.

As there is no opposition and no contest to the claim in the suit, although the service has been held good on the defendant, decree the suit ex parte with costs as prayed.

H. B. T. Suit decreed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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