Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1987 MLD 3313

ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs Syed IJAZ HUSSAIN

Citation1987 MLD 3313
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Revision Application No,.218 of 1982
Date1987-05-19
Judge(s)Ajmal Mian
ResultRevision accepted

' This Revision is directed against the judgment/decree dated 9-2-1982 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court in Suit No,142 of 1981, which was filed by the present petitioners for the recovery of Rs,4,202.20 against one Muhammad Anwar and the present respondent, who was- guarantor to the loan. The suit was not contested. After the service of the summon, the learned Judge Small Causes Court by his above Judgment/decree dated 9-2-1982 decreed the suit against Muhammad Anwar but dismissed the suit against the present respondent on the ground that it was time-barred. The petitioners eing aggrieved by the above judgment/decree has filed the present Revision.

2. It may be observed that the respondent was served by publication through an English Evening Newspaper. The Leader dated 20-12-1981, but has not put in appearance. The letter of intimation has been issued but the respondent has not turned up. 'According to the bailiff's report he is not available at the address given.

Since the respondent was served by publication, he cannot be served every time by publication. He was to be sent intimation the last known address, which has been done. In my view as the respondent has already been served by publication, the matter can be proceeded with in his absence.

3. In support of the above Revision Mr. A.R. Akhtar has invited my attention to the opening para and paras 2, 3 and 4 of the letter of Guarantee executed by the respondent. which indicate that the liability of the respondent to pay would have accrued after the expiry of two days from the date of demand. Furthermore, his liability was co-extensive with the liability of the principal debtor except to the amount of the liability which was to the extent of Rs,2,000 plus interest. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court has taken erroneous view of the matter by holding that the suit against the respondent was barred.

4. I would, therefore set aside the judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court in respect of the respondent and would decree the suit to the extent of Rs,2,000 plus interest from the date of the suit till realisation. There will be no order as to costs.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch