FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The suit of the respondent, under Order XXXVII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., for recovery of Rs,11,70,000 was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 6-8-2001. The petitioner preferred R.F.A. No,691 of 2001 which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide impugned judgment, dated 13-11-2001.
Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the conditions mentioned in the leave granting order, dated 5-10-2000. Therefore, he had filed a written statement only. The failure to furnish security as required by the trial Court was on account of misperception and want of knowledge which ought to have been condoned. As soon as he became aware of the conditional leave granting order, he made an application for extension of time but the same was declined by the trial Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the available record. We find that by order, dated 5-10-2000, the petitioner was directed to furnish security equal to the suit amount as well as the written statement. The petitioner partly complied with the order as regards the written statement but failed to furnish requisite security. It was at a much belated stage that he made an application for extension of time. He could not be considered to be oblivion of the other part of the order granting conditional leave directing him to furnish security. The findings thus, recorded by the High Court as well as by the trial Court are unexceptionable. Even otherwise, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.