| Case ID |
02613e43-107f-4e94-be93-feb87bbf45d7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.R. No. 160 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 25, 2016 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 17, 2016 |
| Decision |
The Islamabad High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed by Shafique Ahmed Qureshi against the order of the Additional District Judge (West) allowing respondent No. 1's application for leave to appear and defend the suit, subject to furnishing surety bonds. The court found no jurisdictional irregularity in the trial court's decision and upheld the requirement for the respondent to provide a surety bond equal to the amount claimed in the suit. The court emphasized that the defendant's affidavit, although brief, met the mandatory requirements of the law. The decision reinforced the importance of proper documentation and adherence to procedural rules in civil litigation, particularly in summary suits under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around a civil revision petition regarding the granting of leave to defend a summary suit based on a dishonored cheque. The Islamabad High Court upheld the decision of the trial court, which had allowed the respondent to defend the suit upon providing a surety bond. The case highlights key aspects of civil procedure, especially pertaining to summary suits and the requirements for affidavits in such proceedings. The court reiterated the importance of presenting plausible defenses and the necessity of complying with procedural mandates. Legal practitioners must ensure that affidavits contain sufficient detail to support applications for leave to defend, as mere assertions may not suffice. This case serves as a crucial reference for understanding the standards applied by courts when evaluating leave to defend applications, especially in financial disputes. The decision reinforces the principle that the substantive merits of a defense must be clearly articulated in supporting documents, and it reiterates the judicial discretion exercised in determining the adequacy of such defenses. Legal professionals should take note of the requirements set forth in this ruling as they navigate similar cases in the future. |
| Court |
Islamabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB,
SHAFIQUE AHMED QURESHI
|
| Lawyers |
Khurram Mehmood Qureshi,
S. Mahmood
|
| Petitioners |
Shafique Ahmed Qureshi
|
| Respondents |
Others,
Walait Khan
|
| Citations |
2017 SLD 2013,
2017 MLD 612
|
| Other Citations |
Umar Khan v. Haji Musa Jan 2009 SCMR 1101,
Haji Ali Khan and Company v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. PLD 1995 SC 362,
Fine Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Haji Umar PLD 1963 SC 163,
Rafique Saigol v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. PLD 1996 SC 749,
Javed Qayyum Khan v. Muhammad Ismail Sabri 2002 CLC 439,
Zohair Akhtar v. Jawad Adil 2006 YLR 1510,
Sharaaf Ali Shah v. Liaquat Ali Shah 2000 CLC 1646
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
2,
3
|