IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Civil Revision Appln : Khalid Hussain Abro vs.

No. S- 118 of 2021 Aijaz Chakrani

For the Applicant : Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro, Advocate

Date of hearing : 20.01.2022

Date of announcement : 20.01.2022

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J. (1) Deferred. (2)Granted, subject to all exceptions. (3) In Summary Suit No.06/2021 learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Larkana, has granted conditional leave to defend, subject to furnishing security. It is this conditional leave order which has been impugned on the premise that the case against the applicant is false and further that the applicant is unable to arrange the security. The Court has also notedthe order dated 04.12.2021, whereby an application for condonation of surety/ security was dismissed. It is illustrative to reproduce the order here below:

“By this order I intend to dispose of an application to condone surety/ security filed by the defendant. IT has been mentioned in the application that he is poor person and will not arrange such amount of Rs.1850000/-, as security/ surety. He remained in jail from 24.10.2019 to 11.12.2019 and confined at C.P Larkana. Notice of this application was given to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant has prayed that applicant is poor person, therefore, his surety/ security may be condoned. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused record. It transpired that one cheque of UBL Bank Hamid Squire Branch Larkana was issued of dated 10.12.2019 of Rs.1250000/- in name of plaintiff which was signed by the defendant. There is report of Bank dated 25.01.2021 wherein it has been mentioned that cheque No.02943589 status of the account is account closed. Moreover, the defendant being accused has furnished two sureties of Rs.500,000/- each in connection to bail application in Crime No.01/2019 Civil Line, Larkana under Section 489-F P.P.C. If the defendant is poor person then how he has arranged surety of Rs.1000000/- before the Honourable High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court Larkana. Therefore, the application to condone surety/ security of Rs.18,50,000/- as already ordered merits no consideration. However, one more chance is provided to defendant to submit his surety/ security thereafter his leave to defend shall be considered. If defendant fails to submit/ furnish surety then matter shall be finally decided on merits. The other pleas of defendant shall be decided at the time of trial if he is permitted to defend.”

2. Heard and perused. The thrust of the applicant's counsel's articulation is that since the entire case against the applicant is false and he is unable to arrange the security, hence, the impugned order was not merited. Learned counsel remained unable to impress upon this Court as to how such a plea could be sustained in the revisionary jurisdiction of this court. It hardly needs to be reiterated that unless one or more of the ingredients of Section 115 CPC are apparent, a revision does not ordinarily lie.

3. The order for grant of leave to defend, conditional or otherwise, is at the discretion of the learned trial Judge and unless such discretion is demonstrated to have been exercised illegally and / or without jurisdiction no interference is merited thereof.

4. This Court has carefully considered the contentions of the applicant and has noted the inability of the learned counsel to cite a single ground based upon which the jurisdiction of this Court could be exercised under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. There is no suggestion that the impugned orderis either an exercise without jurisdiction or a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an act in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity.

5. It is the considered view of this court that the applicant has remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity with the respective judgments meriting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, this revision is hereby dismissed in limine.

JUDGE