' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--Imdad Ali, the appellant/judgment-debtor, through the filing of the instant first appeal, has called in question judgment and decree, dated 12-5-2004, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, after finding that the appellant has failed to furnish the surety bond, subject to which he was granted leave to defend the suit, decreed respondent's suit for the recovery of Rs,76,000.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs,76,000, before the learned District Judge under the summary procedure, provided under Order XXXVII, C.P.C., against the appellant on he basis of a pro note dated 18-8-2001. The appellant filed an application seeking leave to appear and defend the suit, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge and the appellant was permitted to defend the suit, subject to furnishing surety bond equal to the suit amount within a period of 10 days, vide order, dated 29-4- 2004. The appellant did not comply with the terms of the said order and failed to furnish the surety bond within the stipulated period, thus, the learned Additional District Judge decreed respondent's suit, vide judgment and decree, dated 12-5-2004, hence the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after the grant of leave to defend the suit to the appellant, the suit should have been decided after recording the evidence of the parties.
He has further added that as the matter was compromised, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and that the appellant was to properly served.
4. This Court, on 15-6-2004, while requisitioning the record, suspended the operation of the impugned decree subject to furnishing the bank guarantee equal to the suit amount, however, the appellant did not comply with the said order and instead thereof filed an application, seeking amendment in the aforesaid order. This Court, instead of dilating upon the miscellaneous application, proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties on the main appeal.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon the examination of the summoned record. I find that the appellant was granted leave to appear and defend the suit on 29-4-2004, subject to furnishing of surety bond equal to the suit amount within a period of 10 days and that the appellant failed to furnish the surety bond within the said period. Furthermore, the appellant, before the target date, i.e, 9-5-2004, did not file any application before the learned trial Court, seeking extension in time for the submission of the surety bond.
' In the above perspective obviously, the pivotal question is as to what would be the effect in case, a person fails to fulfil the condition, subject to which he was granted leave to defend the suit. When the learned counsel was asked to address the Court on the said legal question, he could neither refer to any provision of law nor cite any precedent in order to show that the Court can proceed with the suit notwithstanding the non-fulfilment of the condition, subject to which, leave to appear and defend the suit was allowed. It is settled law that when a defendant fails to fulfil the condition, subject to which the leave was granted, it is the duty of the Court to pass a decree against the said defendant. If any cases are needed the judgment reported Abdullah v. Shaukat 2001 SCM R 60; Col. (Retd.) Ashfaq Ahmad and others v. Sh. Muhammad Wasim 1999 SCM R 2832; Aftab Iqbal Khan Khichi and another v. Messrs United Distributors Pakistan Ltd. Karachi 1999 SCM R 1326 and Fayyaz- ul-Hassan v. Messrs National Feed (Pvt.) Ltd. 2001 M LD 1630 can be referred.
6. Upon the examination of the impugned judgment and decree dated 12-5-2004, I find that the learned Additional District Judge did not commit any illegality in passing the said judgment, therefore, the same do not require any interference by this Court. The impugned judgment and decree, are hereby maintained.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is devoid of merits, hence dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.