' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against an interim order of the Lahore High Court whereby suspending the operation of the impugned decree the learned High Court directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee equal to the decretal amount.
2. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioner issued four cheques on different dates whereby he agreed to pay Rs,48,11,000 in toto. These cheques were presented by the respondent but the same were dishonored because of the deficit amount in the account. The respondent in the circumstances was constrained to file an application under Order XXXVII, rule 3, C.P.C. The learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, through his judgment dated 16-5-2002 decreed the suit as the petitioner was denied his right to defend the suit in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner filed R.F.A. No,197 of 2002 taking exception to the foretasted decree whereby learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court admitted the appeal on 13-6-2002 and thrashing the entire record through the impugned order, dated 27-6- 2002 directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee equal to the decrial amount. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The issuance of cheques of different amounts on different dates have not been denied by the petitioner. We do not want to dilate much on the issue as R.F.A. Is pending adjudication in the Lahore High Court and any observation made by this Court may prejudice the case of the either party. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the issuance of cheques is admitted, no illegality has been committed by the learned Division Bench in passing the impugned order. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and the leave refused.
Leave refused.
2066 SCMR 647 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ NELSON PAUL alias SALIM--- Petitioner versus Mst. ASMAT PARVEEN and others---Respondents Civil Petition No,2616-L of 2004, decided on 30th December, 2004.
(On appeal from judgment dated 12-8-2004 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No,3102 of 2004).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Commitment made by petitioner before High Court to hand over possession of premises to respondent by specified date---Filing of second Constitutional petition instead of honouring such commitment---Dismissal of second Constitutional petition being not maintainable---Validity---Petitioner was causing harassment to respondent by indulging him in frivolous litigation---Supreme Court, due to such attitude of petitioner, expressed its intention, to impose heavy cost upon him, so that he might avoid such litigation in future---Supreme Court, however, accepted request of petitioner's counsel to hand over possession of premises to respondent by specified date. [p. 648] A & B Maqbool Elahi's case 1988 SCM R 1247 ref. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 30th December, 2004.
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 12- 8-2004 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore. Concluding para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "(4) The case was fixed on 10-8-2004. Office was directed to send notice to respondent No,1 at the expense of the petitioner for today. Respondent No,1 failed to enter appearance. The earlier writ petition was disposed of and granted time to the petitioner on his request till 12-8-2004, therefore, this Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Maqbool Elahi's case 1988 SCM R 1247."
2. When we inquired from the learned counsel that as to why the commitment made by him before the High Court to hand over vacant possession till 12th August, 2004 has not been honoured and for which he has offered lame excuses. Simultaneously another round of litigation has been started by him. Thus, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is causing harassment for respondent by indulging into frivolous litigation and due to his this attitude we wanted to impose heavy cost upon him so he may avoid such litigation in future.
3. On this learned counsel submitted that petitioner will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent on or before 3rd January, 2005 and will not press this petition.
Reluctantly we accede to his request. However, petitioner who is present in person is directed in clear terms to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent without fail on or before 3rd January, 2005 and submit report to the Assistant Registrar of this Court through his Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate-on-Record, who shall place it before us in Chambers for passing appropriate orders if need be.