' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- We intend to decide following regular first appeals by one consolidated judgment having similar facts and law:-- ' Regular First Appeal No,144 of 2002. Regular First Appeal No,145 of 2002.
2. Brief facts out of which the aforesaid appeals arise are that respondents/plaintiffs filed two suits for recovery of Rs,8,00,000 and Rs,15,00,000 before the District Judge, Multan under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. On 17-4-2001 respectively. Appellants filed applications for leave to defend before the District Judge on 8-9-2001. The learned District Judge granted conditional leave to defend the suits subject to furnishing of adequate surety bonds till 11-1-2002 vide order dated 3-1-2002. Appellants failed to furnish adequate surety till 11-1-2002. Appellants filed applications before the learned District Judge, Multan for extension of 3/4 days for furnishing of the surety bonds in both the cases on 11-1-2002. The learned District Judge dismissed the applications of the petitioners vide orders dated 26-2-2002 and decreed the suits of the respondents vide orders dated 26-2-2002.
Appellants being aggrieved filed the aforesaid appeals.
3. The learned counsel of the appellants submits that the learned District Judge decreed the suits against the appellants on technical ground which is not in accordance with the principle of administration of justice. He further submits that learned District Judge passed the impugned orders without applying his judicious mind. He further urged that impugned orders are not in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-- ' Malik Hayat Ullah and others v. Murad Ali Khan PLD 1972 SC 69; Jahandad Khan v. Muhammad Arif Khan 1991 MLD 2109 and Saad Ullah Khan and 2 others v. Sh. Ghulam Qasim PLD 2001 Peshawar 47
4. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the learned trial Court granted three opportunities to the appellants to comply the order dated 11-1-2002 as is evident from the orders of the learned trial Court dated 6-2-2002, 11-2-2002 and 15-2-2002 respectively. He further submits that respondents/plaintiffs had filed suits against the appellants under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. On the basis of pronote executed by the appellants. Therefore, the learned District Judge was justified to dismiss the applications for extension of time of the appellants vide impugned orders dated 26-2- 2002. He further urged that section 148, C.P.C. Is not applicable in the present cases. He further submits that the orders of the learned trial Court are in accordance with the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments.
' Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. Ironite Industries (Pvt.) Limited and 9 others 1991 CLC 438 and Aftab Iqbal Khichi v. Messrs United Distributors Pakistan Limited 1999 SCMR 1326.
5. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record ourselves.
6. It is better and appropriate to reproduce relevant paragraph of the applications of the appellants for extension of time to resolve the controversy between the parties:- {{URDUTETX}} It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants did not attach a single document in support of para. 2 of the applications. It is settled principle of law where grounds mentioned in application for extension of time were absolutely vague, they were held to be not sufficient for exercise of any discretion in favour of the applicant as the law laid down in re: Synthetic Chemicals Company Ltd.
PLD 1988 Karachi 429. It is also settled principle of law where the party had plainly been very negligent and he had completely failed to provide any excuse for his default, discretion was not exercised in favour of such party as the law laid down by this Court in Saeed Ahmad and others v.
Karam Singh and Mst. Jawala Devi PLD 1949 Lah.
380. It is also admitted fact that the appellants were granted time to furnish surety bonds till 11-1- 2002 vide order dated 3-1-2002 but the appellants did not file applications for extension of time before '11-1-2002. It is also admitted fact that the appellants did not furnish surety bonds alongwith the applications filed by the appellants for extension of time. It is also admitted fact that the respondents/plaintiffs filed suits under Order XXXVII, C.P.C., therefore, the learned trial Court was justified not to extend the time in view of vague grounds taken by the appellants in their applications which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Aftab Iqbal Khichi's case (supra).
7. In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders of the learned trial Court. Therefore, the appeals have no merits and the same are dismissed.