' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---All these petitions seeking leave to appeal are directed against judgments dated 13-2-2007 handed down by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan whereby R.F.A. No, 232 of 2000, R.F.A. No,233 of 2000, R.F.A. No, 234 of 2000, R.F.A. No, 57 of 2001 and R.F.A. No, 56 of 2001 were dismissed. As common points of law and similar facts are involved in the petitions, these are being decided through this consolidated judgment. Respondent instituted suits for recovery of Rs, 25,000 each against petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the Court of learned District Judge under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. On the basis of pro note executed in his favour on 8-12-1997.
2. While similar suits were instituted against petitioner Nos.3 and 5 on the basis of pronote executed in favour of the respondent on 31-10-1997 and 27-9-1997 respectively:-
(i) In Civil Petition No, 356 of 2007, vide order dated 12-6-2000, the petitioner's application seeking leave to defend the suit was allowed subject to furnishing surety bond equal to the suit amount till 12-7-2000. The petitioner failed to file the surety bond, hence his application for leave to defend was dismissed, and after taking into consideration the pronote (Exh.P-1) and . Receipt (Exh.P-2) the suit was decreed in favour of respondent vide judgment and decree dated 19-9-2000.
(ii) In Civil Petition No, 357 of 2007, the petitioner was allowed to defend the suit subject to furnishing surety bond for a sum of Rs,25,000 till 12-7-2000 vide order dated 12-6-2000. The petitioner did not submit the surety bond within the specified .Time, however the date for filling the surety bond was extended till 30-9-2000. The petitioner failed to file the surety bond within the specified time and sought extension in time. His application seeking extension in time for filling the surety bond was dismissed and the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte. After considering pronote (Exh-P-1) and receipt (Exh-P-2) the learned trial Court decreed the respondent's suit vide judgment and decree dated 30-9-2000.
(iii) In Civil Petition No, 358 of 2007, vide order dated 12-6-2000 the petitioner was allowed to defend the suit subject to his furnishing the surety bond equal to the suit amount till 12- 7-2000. The petitioner did, not to comply with the order of the learned trial Court, hence his application seeking leave to defend the suit was dismissed and the suit of the respondent was decreed in his favour vide .Judgment and decree dated 19- 9-2000, on the basis of pronote (Exh.P-1) and receipt (Exh.P- 2).
(iv) in Civil Petition No, 359 of 2007, vide order dated 30-10-2000 the respondent was allowed to defend the suit subject to his furnishing surety bond equal to the suit amount till 21- 11-2000.
Instead Of complying with the order of the trial Court, the petitioner sought extension in time for furnishing the surety bond through application which was dismissed on 10-1-2000 and the case was adjourned for recording ex-parte evidence. After considering pronote (Exh.P-1) and receipt (Exh.P-2) the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent vide judgment dated 1-2-2000.
(v) In Civil Petition No, 360 of 2007, vide order dated 30-10-2000 the petitioner was allowed to defend the suit subject to his furnishing surety bond equal to the suit amount till 21-11-2000. Instead of filing the surety bond within the-specified time the petitioner moved application seeking extension in time to submit the surety bond which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 10-1- 2001 and the case was adjourned for recording ex parte evidence. Vide judgment dated 1-2-2001 the suit of the respondent was decreed on the basis of pronote (Exh.P-1) and receipt (Exh.P-2).
' As noted above, the petitioners went in appeals which were dismissed, hence these petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned trial Court had decreed the suits in favour of the respondent without recording any evidence and that the suits were decreed in favour of the respondent without proper application of mind by the learned trial Court, who should have given further opportunity to furnish the requisite surety bond.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gime through the record of the case. In all the .Above noted petitions the petitioners were allowed to defend the suit _subject to their furnishing surety bond equal to suit amount within specified time. The petitioners failed to fulfill the conditions on which leave to defend the suits were granted to them. Perusal of the sub- para (2) of rule 2 of Order XXXVII reveals that in default of obtaining leave to defend or to appear in his defence the allegation in the plaint would be deemed to be admitted and the suit could be decreed against the defendants. We would like to reproduce the observations of this Court, on the point, made in the judgment titled of Haji Ali Khan and Company, Abbottabad and 8 others v.
Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Abbottabad (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 362):-- "10. The ratio decidendi of the above-referred cases seems to be that if a defendant fails to appear or fails to obtain leave to defend in response to a summons served in form No,4 provided in Appendix B to the C.P.C. Or fails to fulfil the condition on which leave was granted or where the Court refuses to grant leave, the Court is to pass a decree. It may further be observed that in sub- rule (2) of rule 2, C.P.C., it has been provided that if a defendant fails to appear or defaults in obtaining leave, the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree, but no such consequences are provided for in rule 3 of the above Order in a case where the Court refuses to grant leave or the defendant fails to fulfil the condition on which leave was granted. In our view, notwithstanding the above omission in Rule 3, the effect of refusal of the Court to grant leave or failure on the part of the defendant to comply with the condition of the leave, will be the "same i,e, the defendant shall not be entitled to defend the suit on any ground and the Court would pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. However, this does not necessarily mean that the Court is not required to apply its mind to the facts and the documents before it. Every Court is required to apply its mind before passing any order or judgment notwithstanding the factum that no person has appeared before it to oppose such an order or that the person who wanted to,oppose was not allowed to oppose because he failed to fulfil the requirements of, law."
' A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Abdullah v. Shaukat (2001 SCM R 60) relevant portion is as follows:-- "5. The appellant had all the time in the world to comply with the direction, dated 18-1-1992 and that too by submitting a personal surety bond in the sum of Rs, 22,400 between 181-1992. He did not do so and his failure was rightly considered by the learned District Judge and the learned Judge in the Lahore High Court, Multan bench as tantamount to admission of the claim of the other side."
In all the cases the learned trial Court had considered and brought on record the pronotes and receipts executed in favour of the respondent, so it could not be said that the learned trial Court did not apply its 'mind to the facts of the case or that the suits were decreed without any evidence.
' It is not denied that it was within the discretion of the learned trial Court to grant leave to defend the suit subject to imposition of condition. The order of the learned trial Court on that regard was perfectly legal, furthermore it was not challenged by the petitioners. The petitioners were given sufficient time to comply with the direction of the leaned trial Court, vis-a-vis furnishing the surety bonds but the orders were not complied with for no justifiable reasons. The leaned trial Court rightly dismissed the applications of the petitioners seeking leave to defend. The 'learned counsel failed to point out any irregularity or infirmity in the judgments passed by the learned courts below.
5. No ground for interference in the impugned judgments has been made out. The same are dismissed. Leave is refused.