1. ' The appellant has called in question the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Karachi (South), dated 9-1-1990, decreeing the respondent's suit under Order 37, C.P.C.
2. ' The appellant had purchased some items of computer stationery from the respondent and issued a post-dated cheque, bearing No. 164673, dated 14-8-1988, drawn on Bank of Credit and Commerce International, for Rs,14,940 in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the date of the post- dated cheque was further extended, but, thereafter, when the cheque was presented by the respondent to the bank the same was dishonoured with the remarks, "the payment stopped by drawer." The respondent intimated the same to the appellant but the latter failed to make the payment and under such circumstances the suit was filed by the respondent against the appellant before the learned trial Court.
3. ' The appellant filed an application for leave to defend the suit before the learned trial Court wherein a stand was taken that the appellant had issued a cheque without receiving material from the respondent, but upon an oral assurance from him that the material would be supplied to the appellant as soon as the same was available. However, the material was not supplied by the respondent to the appellant. This defence was not accepted as plausible by the learned trial Court and consequently, application filed on behalf of the appellant for leave to defend the suit was dismissed vide order dated 9-1-1990. The following were the reasons which appear to have weighed with the learned trial Court which resulted in the dismissal of the said application: " Learned counsel for the defendant has stated before me that the payment of the cheque was got stopped by the defendant by sending a letter to the bank. If the defendant could stop the payment in writing, he was expected to have intimated the plaintiff as well in writing that the payment was to be stopped if the material was not being supplied: As per the bills dated 3-8-1988 and 22-8-1988 the defendant had received the required material. On 10-9:1988 the defendant had sent a letter to the plaintiff intimating that one Mr. Jameel, their sales representative, ceased to be their employee.
4. If by that time the material was not supplied as pleaded by the defendant, and the cheque was still in the hands of the plaintiff, the defendant was legally expected to have mentioned about this fact as well in this letter dated 10-9-1988. Accordingly, learned counsel for the plaintiff has rightly urged that non-mention of this fact of non-supply of the material even in letter dated 10-9-1988 would be sufficient to presume that the material had actually been received by the defendant and so the payment under the cheque ought to have been made to the plaintiff."
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that if the defendants have succeeded in establishing a plausible defence which can be considered subsequently, then unconditional leave is to be granted to the defendants to defend the case. There can hardly be any cavil with the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, the basic question is, whether the appellant had succeeded in establishing a plausible defence which could be considered by the Court. In this regard I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned trial Court that the defence set up by the appellant was not sufficient enough for granting him leave to defend the suit. Consequently, the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 9-1-1990 declining to grant leave to the appellant to defend the suit is not open to exception. Since the leave was declined by the learned trial Court, the suit filed by the plaintiff had to be decreed.
6. ' In view of the circumstance of the case just enumerated by me in this judgment, I find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.