MUHAMMAD IRSALAN FARAZ vs HABIB UL REHMAN O — 2025 CLC 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.

MUHAMMAD IRSALAN FARAZ VS HABIB UL REHMAN O.XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2(2) & 3(2)---Suit for recovery---Conditional leave to defend, grant of---Failure to satisfy the condition---Effect---Order granting conditional leave to defend, recalling of---Scope---The respondent filed a suit for recovery under O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. against the petitioner---The petitioner/defendant filed an application for leave to defend the suit, which was accepted subject to furnishing surety bonds---Respondent/plaintiff moved an application alleging that the surety bond submitted by the petitioner/defendant was fake and forged---The Trial Court, after conducting an inquiry, found the surety bond to be fake---Consequently, the court recalled its earlier order granting conditional leave and dismissed the petitioner's/defendant's application to defend the suit---Subsequently, petitioner filed the present civil revision arguing that the impugned order was illegal and that he should have been allowed to furnish fresh surety---Primary legal question in the present civil revision was as to "whether a court could retract an order granting leave to defend in a summary suit under O. XXXVII of the C.P.C., when the condition precedent attached to that leave had not been genuinely fulfilled?"---Held: When leave to appear and defend the suit was granted subject to a specific condition, the very efficacy of that leave depended on fulfillment of that condition---If the condition was not met in its true letter and spirit, the order granting conditional leave became inoperative---In the present case, the trial court, after conducting an inquiry that included summoning and recording of the statement of the relevant patwari, arrived at the finding that the petitioner/defendant submitted forged surety bonds, which clearly constituted non-compliance of the conditional order granting leave to defend---The submission of a fake surety bond was not merely a technicality rather it constituted an act of fraud committed with court---Therefore, no illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the court below was pointed out warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the C.P.C.---Civil revision being devoid of any merit was dismissed in limine.

MUHAMMAD IRSALAN FARAZ vs HABIB UL REHMAN O — 2025 CLC 1580 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC