On 12-3-1984 Allah Bachaya respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.15,000 from Khadim Hussain appellant on the basis of pronote. The suit was filed under Order XXXVII of Civil Procedure Code. The requisite summon was issued to the petitioner/defendant. He appeared before the trial Court and filet application for permission to defend the suit. The permission was granted subject to his depositing the amount of Rs.15,000 till 12-5-1984 and the case was fixed for --hearing on 13-5- 1984. The petitioner did not deposit the amount on or before 12--5-1984. On 13-5-1984 neither he nor his learned counsel entered appearance. So, the trial Court decreed the suit, hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the stamps affixed on the pronote were not cancelled in accordance with law, therefore, the pornote was not admissible in evidence and as such no decree could be passed against the appellant; that although the appellant /defendant had specifically stated in his application for permission to defend the suit that his signature on the pronote were forged and for the comparison thereof, he had also attached identity card with the application, yet the trial Court did not consider this aspect of the matter at the time of the hearing of the application of the appellant; that the appellant had also annexed with his application agreement executed by the respondent to show that he had obtained loan of Rs.5,000 from the appellant on 1-2-1983 and as such the question of receiving Rs.15,000 on 4-5-1983 by the appellant from the respondent/plaintiff did not arise. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that although the learned trial Judge had granted leave to defend the suit subject to the appellant depositing Rs.15,000 yet the appellant not only failed to deposit the amount within the specified time but also did not appear before the Court on the date fixed for hearing of the case. The relevant provision of law may be reproduced advantageously.
Sub rule (2) of rule 2.-"In any case in which the plaint and summons are in such forms respectively, the defendants shall not appear or defend the suit unless he obtains leave from a judge as hereinafter provided so to appear and defend; and in default of his obtaining such leave or of his appearance and defence in pursuance thereof, the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree."
It is thus very much obvious that since the appellant had not fulfilled the condition of deposit of Rs.15,000 and had also failed to appear before the Court, therefore, the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and as such, the trial Court had no option but to decree the suit. In the circumstances of the case, the question of exhibiting pronote or of considering 'the same did not arise. The submissions made by the learned counsel are devoid of force and substance.
For what has been said above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.