1. ATIR MAHMOOD, J.--- This civil revision is directed against the order dated 2-11-2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shorkot whereby the application for leave to appear and defend the suit filed by the respondent-defendant was accepted.
2. 2.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- under Order XXXVII rule 1 of C.P.C. against the respondent, Muhammad Siddique alleging that the petitioner is pensioner from Army and after retirement, he was employed as Security Guard in Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Shorkot and presently he is running a business. It is also alleged that he has saved some amount for his necessities and on 20-9-2011, the respondent, who is a goldsmith demanded Rs.15,00,000/- as loan from the petitioner for the purchase of gold for a period of six months. On 25-9-2011, the petitioner gave Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent in presence of Muhammad Ashfaq and Manzoor Hussain P.Ws. while the respondent handed over a Cheque No.MCB 087067 Kaki Nau Branch Code No.0406 under Account KBA/AC180-4 Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang. The petitioner presented the cheque in the concerned bank after expiry of the date of commitment i.e. 26-3-2012 but the same was dishonuored. Thereafter petitioner approached the respondent along with the witnesses and demanded his money back as the cheque was dishonoured but the respondent refused to return the amount giving the reference of criminal case for abduction got registered by the brother of the respondent against the petitioner and his relatives. Thereafter the respondent filed an application for permission for leave to defend the suit which was dismissed being barred by time. Thereafter, respondent filed a revision before this court which was accepted with the direction to decide the suit on merits. Thereafter, the application of the respondent for leave to appear and defend the suit was accepted vide impugned order. Hence this civil revision.
3. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shorkot is against the facts, record and law; that the learned appellate court without appreciating and considering the real facts of the case allowed the respondent to appear and defend the suit unconditionally; that the appellate court while giving his observation has committed material illegality and irregularity and the same is not sustainable, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be dismissed.
4. 4.I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record.
5. 5.The main emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court has granted leave to appear and defend the suit unconditionally and if at all leave was to be granted it should have been allowed conditionally subject to some payment or furnishing a reasonable security. In this regard, the provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. are reproduced for ready reference:--- "3.Defendant showing defence on merits to have leave to appear--- (1)The Court shall, upon application by the defendant, give leave to appear and to defend the suit, upon affidavits which disclose such facts as would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration, or such other facts as the Court may deem sufficient to support the application.
6. (2)Leave to defend may be givenunconditionally or subject to suchterms as to payment into Court, giving security, framing and recording issuesor otherwise as the Court thinks fit."
7. 6.The bare reading of the above provision makes it explicitly clear that there is no condition precedent for granting the leave to appear and defend the suit by furnishing any sort of security or any payment.
8. 7.The learned trial Court while granting the application for leave to appear and defend the suit has looked into the relevant material placed on the file and has passed the impugned order by exercising its jurisdiction which cannot be termed as illegal or unlawful and it calls for no interference by this Court in view of its revisional jurisdiction.
9. 8.For what has been discussed above, this civil revision being devoid of any force is dismissed in limine.