This being a matter arising out of summary proceedings being taken under Order 37 of C.P.C. a pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent and in pursuance thereof the said respondent has entered appearance through his counsel. In view of the nature of the suit, the matter was admitted to regular hearing and is being disposed of as such.
2. It was during the course of a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote that the petitioner sought a leave of the Court to appear and defend the same on the ground that the pronote is a forged document and that same has been concocted by the respondent because of on going litigation between the sister of the petitioner and the respondent. It was submitted that the sister of the petitioner has married to the respondent and that the spouses were not leading a happy life with the result that the said sister of the petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of maintenance against the respondent. It is submitted that the present claim of the respondent is absolutely false and the document has been mala fide concocted for the ulterior purpose.
This application of the petitioner was resisted by the respondent who denied the allegations contained therein and prayed that the application be dismissed.
3. Learned District Judge, Sahiwal without adverting to the contents of the application as also the reply thereof passed the impugned order dated 6-4-1993 thereby allowing the petitioner to appear and defend the suit on the condition that he should furnish a bank guarantee for the total suit amount or before 5-5-1994. This order has been assailed by way of the present revision petition.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a cursory glance at the impugned order would show that the same is not a speaking order and it gives an impression of a hastily off hand decision. The precise submission is to the effect that the learned District Judge has not attended to the various contentions raised in the application nor cared to resolve the same before imposition of the condition of furnishing bank guarantee. Faced with this aspect of the matter, the learned counsel for the respondent had little or nothing to say. There is much force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed mechanically and as a matter of course. It is no doubt true that the proceedings under Order 37 of C.P.C. Are summary in nature but that does not absolve the judicial authority to see as to whether a plausible defence has been disclosed or not. In the instant case no such effort appears to have been made therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
5. For the reasons stated above this revision petition is accepted and the order, dated 5-5-1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal is hereby set aside and the case is remitted to the said learned Court for deciding the same afresh after hearing the parties thereby taking into consideration the various aspects of the matter.