' In a suit filed under Order XXXVII, Civil Procedure Code for recovery of Rs,90,772 on the basis of a pronote, the appellant was served in the manner prescribed and he filed an application for grant of leave to defend the suit. The application was resisted. Vide an order dated 6-2-2001, the learned trial Court although observed that no plausible defence has been made out yet he proceeded to grant leave to the appellant to defend the suit subject to furnishing a surety bond in the sum of Rs,90,000. It was made clear in the order that in case the bond is not furnished on or before the next date the application shall stand dismissed. This order was passed on 6-2-2001 and the case was adjourned to 20-2-2001. The appellant instead of complying with the order of the Court passed in the said specific terms proceeded to file an application on 20-2-2001 seeking extension of time.
The reason stated for extension was that the applicant had become involved in some family affaiRs, This application was dismissed on the same date. However, in all fairness, since the learned trial Court had directed the furnishing of the bond on or before 20-2-2001, he kept the file pending till the end of the Court hours and thereafter adjourned the case to the following day for ordeRs, On the said day it was noted that since surety bond has not been furnished and the learned trial Court is not satisfied with the cause shown for nonperformance of the condition, the application stands dismissed and the suit was decreed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the pronote is under-stamped and as such was not admissible in evidence. Also refers to a writing at the bottom of the document which bears the date 5-12-1997 while the pronote is dated 6-12-1997.
3. Trial Court records have been summoned and perused with the assistance of the learned counsel. I find that even in the application for have to defend there is no denial of the execution of the document by the appellant. This being so, there was no dispute regarding the said pronote. I may state that the mere fact that the document is unstamped or under-stamped does not make it invalid. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has put the matter at rest vis-a-vis admitted state of affairs of the present lis in the case of Union Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd. v. Hafiz Muhammad Siddique (PLD 1978 SC 279).
4. So far as the writing on the foot of the pronote is concerned, nothing turns on the same as the execution of the document has not been denied.
5. No other point has been urged. The R.F.A. Is dismissed in limine.
6. Records of the learned trial Court be remitted back immediately.