Athar Minallah, C.J. The petitioner has assailed orders, dated 17-06-2017 and 22-07-2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (East) Islamabad.
2. Muhammad Shiraz (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") had filed a suit under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned trial court accepted the application filed by the petitioner for seeking leave vide order, dated 20-04-2017. However, the petitioner's right to file written statement was struck-of vide order, dated 17-06-2017, on account of his failure to comply with order of the learned trial court to submit sureties. The application filed by the petitioner to recall order, dated 17-06-2017, and allow him to submit his personal surety was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order, dated 22-07-2017.
3. The learned counsel has been heard at length.
Admittedly, the petitioner was extended several opportunities to comply with order, dated 20-04- 2017. However, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunities and did not submit the surety as ordered by the learned trial court. After giving last and final opportunity and imposing cost, the learned trial court struck-of the right of the petitioner to file his written statement. The impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The discretion exercised by the learned trial court has neither been found arbitrary nor fanciful. No legal infirmity has been pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner requiring interference with the well-reasoned impugned order. The petitioner had failed to establish his bonafides before the learned trial court.
4. For the above reasons, the petitioner is without merit and, therefore, accordingly dismissed.