' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- This appeal filed by Muhammad Nazir appellant/defendant impugns the judgment and decree, dated 10-2-2003 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of Qadeer Babar respondent/plaintiff. The said suit was filed on the basis of a promissory note and sought recovery of a sum of Rs,50,000 from the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner applied for leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. The said application was allowed conditionally, subject to the petitioner furnishing a surety bond by the next date of hearing i.e, 10-2- 2003. On 10-2-2003 the petitioner filed an application seeking more time to furnish the surety bond.
The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that the Condition imposed on the petitioner/defendant had not been fulfilled by him. As a consequence, the learned trial Court held that the application for leave to appear and defend stood dismissed on the date of the previous order because of the failure of the petitioner to fulfil the condition imposed on him.
2. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the impugned decree proceeds on the erroneous premise that the time granted to the appellant for furnishing a surety bond could not have been extended by the Court.
3. Qadeer Babar (respondent/plaintiff) has entered appearance through counsel. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent that the appellant had, in fact, moved an application on 10-2-2003 for extension of time for the purpose of submitting a surety bond. At the time the application was submitted by the appellant/defendant the learned trial Court had not passed a decree or become functus offico. As such it does appear that the finding in the impugned judgment that the Court could not have extended the time allowed to the appellant for furnishing the surety bond, is not well founded. This legal proposition is well settled and admits of no ambiguity in view of the express power allowed to a Court under section 148, C.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, however states that the appellant had been grossly negligent because he was given ample time to furnish a surety bond but had failed to avail the opportunity allowed to him. This argument can, at most, justify, the imposition of costs on the appellant but is not sufficient to deprive him of his right to defend the suit when the learned trial Court has itself held that the matter in controversy requires evidence.
5. In the foregoing circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree, dated 10-2-2003 are set aside subject to payment of Rs,2000 as costs.
6. Since .Both parties are represented, they are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 7-7-2003. The learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the matter within the current year if its work load so permits.