1. ' These are the two applications moved by the defendant. One is for the grant of leave to defend in the suit while the other has been moved under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the said application.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff has brought the present suit against the defendant under Order XXXVII, rule 2, C.P.C. For the recovery of suit amount. The suit is based on a cheque hearing No,00572254 dated 28-6-1989 drawn on Habib Bank Limited by the present defendant alleged to be in favour of the plaintiff. This cheque is said to have been dishonoured by the Bank and, therefore, the suit has been filed. In this suit, notice was issued to the defendant and the matter was liked on 14-5-1990 for service. The order of the Additional Registrar on 14-5-199(1 shows that summons were returned as per bailifPs report and the matter was adjourned to 21-5-1990 without making any observations as to whether service has held good or otherwise. The report of the bailiff shows that when he had approached the house of the defendant, there, he met with a woman who asked him to give the notice to her, and that she will get the same signed by the defendant but then she said that the defendant had refused to accept the notice. Thereafter, the bailiff is said to have pasted the notice on the door of the defendant but he could not procure any witness to attest. In these circumstances, this obviously is not a good service on the defendant. The defendant has submitted that on acquiring the knowledge of bailiff having come to his house he voluntarily appeared before the Additional Registrar on 15-5-1990 and obtained a copy of the plaint. The defendant thereafter wanted to engage an Advocate but he fell ill on 19-5-1990 and was confined to bed under medical advice. He has produced two certificates from one Dr. Muhammad Amin Memon, consultant physician of Holy Family Hospital in support of his contention that he was advised rest for a period of four weeks commencing from 19-5-1990. The applications for leave to defend and for condonation of day both have been moved in this Court on 11-6-1990, which is within the period of four weeks as stated above. The fact that the case of the defendant that he was suffering from illness and is confined to bed is fully corroborated by the above- said medical certificates issued by a highly qualified doctor. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the plaintiff who has not contradicted the factum of the illness of the defendant. In these circumstances, I accept the application moved by the defendant for condonation of delay.
3. ' In the application for leave to defend, the defendant has raised the plea that he had business dealings with Messrs Aziz Brothers Textile (Private) Limited, which was initiated through one broker Abba Ali to whom he had delivered the cheque in dispute for the suit amount. It is further contended by the defendant that this amount has subsequently been paid in cash to the said broker Abba Ali. It is also the case of the defendant that this cheque was given by way of surety as is in vogue in business transactions and now after having made cash payment to the broker, he is no more liable to pay the said amount. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the cheque in suit is issued in the name of "Aziz Bhai" whereas the suit has been filed by one Aziz Ahmed with whom the defendant has no private. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the defendant has raised an issue, which requires evidence and consideration. I accordingly allow the two applications. The leave to defend is granted to the defendant subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs,1,46,741.62. There will be no order as to costs.