ABDUL GHAFFAR vs UMAR FAROOQ O — 2025 CLC 1253 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.

ABDUL GHAFFAR VS UMAR FAROOQ O.XXXVII, Rr. 2(2), 2(3), 4, 7 & 10---Suit for recovery on the basis of cheque---Form of leave to defend application---Leave to defend granted to appellant but appellant failing to file written statement---Circumstances where leave to defend application can be considered as written statement---Scope---Leave to defend application can be considered as written statement where it would not have prejudicial effect to the other side---Once leave is granted suit is to be converted to regular civil suit and is to be decided under general procedure of C.P.C.---Facts in brevity were that the respondent filed a suit for recovery against the appellant, whereby, it was alleged that the appellant had borrowed the amount and issued the cheque in repayment which was dishonored upon presentation---Leave to defend was granted to the appellant, however, the appellant repeatedly failed to file a written statement despite multiple opportunities and was eventually proceeded against ex-parte---The Trial Court recorded the respondent's evidence and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent---The appellant challenged this decree through the present regular first appeal contending that the leave application should have been treated as the written statement and that he was wrongly proceeded against ex-parte---Held: In absence of written statement, defense on counter-affidavit could be considered to frame issues for advancement of justice provided it did not have prejudicial effect to the other side, however, the appellant could not take benefit of this in the instant case as leave was not granted to the appellant upon him showing any plausible defense but due to statement of the plaintiff that he had no objection to grant leave subject to furnishing surety and this was also accepted by the appellant and then he was directed to file written statement---Appellant kept on seeking adjournments for more than two months for filing written statement---It was not a case where the leave was also in the form of written statement or it contained essentials given in O. VIII of C.P.C.---The appellant had never requested before the Trial Court to treat his leave as written statement---Absolute last opportunities were granted to the appellant on his specific requests and fine was also imposed but all in vain---Finally, the right to file written statement was closed---The respondent appeared as PW-1 and supported the contents of the suit---He stated that in order to repay the loan, the cheque was issued by the appellant; that it was presented in his account, however, the same was dishonored and returned---The signatures on the cheque were not denied even in the leave application---Relationship manager of the bank confirmed that the cheque was dishonoured---Witnesses of the plaintiff stood by the respondent regarding plea of loan---The stamp-vendor supported the respondent as to issuance of stamp paper on which the agreement was written---Notary public also appeared and verified the agreement containing his signatures---There was nothing in rebuttal---The present appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

ABDUL GHAFFAR vs UMAR FAROOQ O — 2025 CLC 1253 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC