ORDER CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--- This civil revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 26-6-2010.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit under section 37, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.
For the recovery of Rs.2,31,000 against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for permission to defend the suit and vide order dated 1-6-2009, the learned trial court accepted the application of the petitioner for leave to defend subject to furnish surety bond in the equivalent amount. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his written statement. On 15-1-2010, learned trial court struck of the right of defence of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has failed to comply with the order dated 1-6-2009 as he has not furnished surety bond before filing the written statement. The petitioner on 4-2-2010, moved an application for permission to submit surety bond which was refused by the learned trial court. Hence this civil' revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is against law and fact.
Learned trial court has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction. Further contends that the impugned order has passed in violation of principle of natural justice. The learned trial court had never fixed any time for furnishing surety bond, therefore, civil revision be accepted; impugned order be set aside and learned trial court be directed to allow the petitioner to furnish surety bond.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this civil revision and has contended that on 1-6-2009, the learned trial court allowed the petitioner to submit written statement subject to furnish surety bond thereafter the case had been adjourned for a number of times. The petitioner submitted his written statement but deliberately did not furnish the surety bond. Learned trial court rightly struck of the right of defense of petitioner. Civil Revision is without merit it be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record highlights that vide order dated 1-6-2009, the learned trial court granted permission to the petitioner to contest suit and file written statement with a condition to furnish surety bond in the equivalent amount of Rs. 2,31,000. There is no ambiguity in the order dated 1-6- 2009 about furnishing surely bond. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived that learned trial court had not fixed a date for filing surety bond as it was clearly mentioned in the order dated 1-6-2009 that the petitioner was allowed to submit written statement on 10-6-2009 provided if he furnish surety bond. Thereafter the case was adjourned for about 12 various dates and ultimately vide order dated 15-1-2010, the right of defence of petitioner was struck of and the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte and case was adjourned for 16-1-2010 for recording the evidence of plaintiff. Even on 16-1-2010, the petitioner did not bother about the order dated 15-1-2010 and case was further adjourned for 4-2-2010 when the petitioner filed an application for extension of period for despite of surety bond.
7. Perusal of record highlights that learned trial court allowed the application for leave to defend suit subject to deposit of surety bond before filing of written statement but petitioner/defendant did not comply with the order of learned trial Court. Failure of petitioner was rightly considered by the learned trial Court who had rightly struck of the right of defence of petitioner/defendant. Relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case- "Abdullah v. Shaukat" (2001 SCM R 60). Civil revision is without any merit, no interference is called for, same is dismissed..