MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs RIAZ MAHMOOD O — 2022 CLC 1815 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS RIAZ MAHMOOD O.XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 21 & 113---Suit for recovery---Cheque dishonoured on ground of insufficient balance---Respondent launched FIR which was cancelled by the Police---Respondent/plaintiff claimed that appellant demanded and received an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- and issued a cheque which was dishonoured---Appellant's application for leave to defend was accepted and he failed to comply with the Trial Court's direction to deposit surety bond equivalent to the amount mentioned in the cheque---Trial Court recalled its order due to non-compliance and decreed the suit---Appellant contended that witnesses had not proved execution of the cheque; that cheque was not produced through Bank employees and had not been exhibited in the statement of respondent as witness; that FIR lodged by respondent was cancelled by the police after due investigation as cheque was issued by the appellant in lieu of the alleged amount; that the appellant was a wealthy person, settled abroad since long and had no need to borrow said amount; that without framing the issues ex-parte evidence was recorded by the learned trial Court; that due to "Corona" virus crises and strike of revenue officials the appellant could not deposit the surety bond within time; that the appellant was not present in the Trial Court; that Trial Court took harsh step under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. instead of the initiation of the proceedings under O.XVII, R.2, C.P.C.; on the date of hearing for recording of evidence, but on that date evidence was recorded, the suit was decreed and the suit was converted into execution proceedings and Court issued the show-cause notice to appellant/judgment debtor---Validity---Appellant was given by the trial Court three opportunities to deposit the surety bond but he failed to deposit the same---Trial Court adjourned the case for recording of the ex-parte evidence and on the next hearing evidence of the respondent was recorded and the suit was decreed---Appellant did not file any application to get set aside the order of Trial Court, nor any application for extension of time for deposit surety bond---Appellant, after initiation of execution proceedings, did not appear before the Court rather he filed present appeal and did not comply with its direction to deposit 50% of the decretal amount within 15 days---Appellant's conduct/attitude reflected that he was not entitled for any relief---Appellant, in his application for leave to defend, admitted that the cheque was issued by him, therefore, Trial Court had no need to record any evidence to prove such admitted fact---No plausible explanation was tendered by the appellant for non-depositing of the surety bond during the trial and non-depositing of the 50% decretal amount in execution proceedings---Record showed that, appellant's counsel was present but order of the Court was not complied with nor any application for extension of time was submitted---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs RIAZ MAHMOOD O — 2022 CLC 1815 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLC