Nafees Ahmad vs Zia-ud-Din O — 2024 MLD 1580 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.

Nafees Ahmad VS Zia-ud-Din O. XXXVII , R. 2 (2)---Suit for recovery on the basis of cheque---Condition attached with leave granting order, non-compliance of---Leave granting order, recalling of---Application to leave to defend filed by the appellant/defendant was granted to him subject to furnishing security / surety bond, however, he remained unable to comply with the condition and as a result thereof leave granting order was recalled by the Trial Court and decree was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff---Argument of the appellant / defendant was that by recalling the leave granting order he was wrongly ousted from producing his defence and the Trial Court acted in haste while recalling the leave granting order---Validity---Order sheet of the Trial Court reflected that after about two and a half months of the grant of leave subject to condition (filing of surety bond),the counsel of appellant requested for some time to file surety bond when he was given last opportunity---Thereafter, on next date of hearing once again same request was made when absolute and final opportunity was granted---On next hearing the appellant was himself present in the Court and he gave undertaking with respect to submission of surety---But, the previous conduct continued and the Court clearly observed that the surety should be filed before closing hours of the Court but the appellant failed, apparently leaving the Trial Court with no other option but to recall the leave granting order and as a consequence of the same leave to appear and defend the suit was deemed to be dismissed---Such conduct of the appellant was sufficient indication of the fact that the appellant accepted the condition and then caused undue delay of about four months just to avoid expeditious decision in suit---Thus,said recalling order of the Trial Court essentially meant that the appellant had no leave to appear and defend the case in terms of O. XXXVII, R. 2 (2) of the Code---Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1580 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Nafees Ahmad VS Zia-ud-Din O. XXXVII , R. 1 & 2---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Suit for recovery on the basis of cheque---Criminal as well as civil litigation regarding the cheque---Scope---Decree was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by the Trial Court---Contention of the appellant /defendant was that he had been discharged from the criminal cases registered under S.489-F of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860---Validity---Both the criminal as well as civil cases have different standards of proof and acquittal or discharge from criminal case does not absolve a litigant from the civil liability, if burden is discharged by the other side as per settled principles of civil standard of proof---Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Nafees Ahmad vs Zia-ud-Din O — 2024 MLD 1580 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD