It is contended that leave to deferred the suit was granted to the appellant subject to the furnishing of bank guarantee but due to the fraud and misrepresentation of the respondent the appellant could not furnish the said bank guarantee as, a result of which the learned trial Court straightaway decreed the suit. It is further contended that the trial Court could not straightaway pass a decree in the present case and should have recorded evidence before passing the said decree. Reliance is placed on Malik Muhammad Sated v. Mian Muhammad Sadiq (1985 M L D1440), and Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Yar (PLD 1987 Lah. 101).
2. The appeal is admitted to regular hearing subject to the condition that the appellant deposits in the trial Court the decretal amount within 15 (lays. I R.F.A. Be listed in the 2nd week of February, 1989.
C. M.1 of 1989 Execution proceedings, if any, are stayed if the above condition is fulfilled by the appellant.