Summary suits on Negotiable instruments under order 37 CPC 1908.Part 01.

Subscribe my channel and press bell button to get updates about my latest lectures. #Summary #Suits #CPC #1908 #Order37..If cheque wz not presented to the Bank for its payment within 6months then procedure provided for in Order 37, CPC wud not be available to the plaintiff and the suit so filed wud not be maintainable 2016CLC937..چیک ڈس آنر ھو گیا،اگردعوی زیر التوا ھے تودفعہf-489ت پ کے تحت مقدمہ کے اندراج پر کوئی بار نہیں۔Copied material --------------------------- Reference cheque back side guarantee کسی کو بطور ضمانت چیک دیتے وقت مندرجہ ذیل باتوں کا خاص خیال رکھیں: کسی کو براے ضمانت دیا گیا چیک آپکی تھوڑی سی لاپرواہی آپکو فوجداری مقدمہ میں ملوث کرسکتی ہے جو کہ ناقابل ضمانت جرم بھی ہے لہذا کسی کو بھی چیک دیتے وقت چیک کی پشت پر For Surety ضرور لکھیں کیونکہ لین دین کی بابت چیک دینے کی صورت میں فوجداری کاروائی نہیں ہوتی مزید اعلی عدلیہ نے اپنے فیصلہ 2018 وائی ایل آر نوٹ 157 کے صفحہ نمبر 118 پر قرار دیا ہے کہ اگر چیک کی پشت پر For Surety لکھا ہو تو ایف آئی آر درج نہ ہوگی PLJ 2017 LAH 673..SUMMARY SUIT ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS O.XXXVII C.P.C 1908 O-37, R-2 Even if suit not based on negotiable instruments i.e. bill of exchange, hundi, promissory note, Special court obliged to follow summary procedure of O-37 CPC on all suits before it including suits based on mortgages of all kinds on statement of accounts. PLD 1995 SC 362 O-37, R-3 Suit based on promissory notes for recovery of amount claimed against defendant in summary manner, dispute could not be referred to arbitrator in terms of the agreement. 1995 CLC 1024 O-37, R-3 – Art.185(3) 0f Constitution . Defendant was allowed loan on furnishing Bank guarantee equal to suit amount – Revision to the extent of bank guarantor remained unsuccessful. Keeping in view defence raised in application for leave and law laid down in Fine Textile Mills VS Haji Umar (PLD 1963 SC 163) appeal was accepted-order of H.C and trials court as to bank guarantor set aside – defendant was prepared to offer any solvent security to satisfaction of court-leave defend granted on furnishing any solvent security to satisfaction of trial court . 1995 SCMR 925 ORDER 37 Object & spirit of O -37 – neither unislamic nor inequitable. PLD 1993 LAH 224 Object to secure ends of justice-claim based on negotiable instruments –no need to prove consideration if execution of notice not denied. PLD 1993 LAH 244 H.N (h) ORDER 37 –RULE 1& 2 Suit shall be decreed where failure of appearance or omission to apply for leave However, where leave is refused plaintiff has to prove his case. PLD 1987 LHO 101 ORDER 37 – RULE 1&2 Leave to defendant refused even when following pleas raised – on confirmation slips defendant’s signature forged –suit barred from last deposit beyond 3 years – mortgage deed relating to different loan from different branch – penal interest wrongly claimed- blank pronote fraud by bank. PLD 1990 LAH 99 Leave refused even on following pleas: signatures obtained on blank documents, statement of A/C incorrect , letters of guarantee not properly stamped, promotes contain exorbitant interest against islam etc. PLD 1989 KAR 371 ORDER 37- RULE 2 Suit in summary jurisdiction for refund of security from defendant leave not sought within 10 days –application dismissed-suit decreed –defendant’s claim that plaintiff had embezzled large sum of money and had filed suit for recovery of same of no avail to defendant because he has still to established that plaintiff embezzled money refund of security till defendant’s suit is decided. 1995 SCMR 45 O. XXXVII R. 2 & 3 Limitation Act (IX of 1908) Sect. 5 Suit for recovery based on Promisory Note – delay in filing leave application on the ground that trial court was on leave for nine days due to Winter holidays – held – delay of every single day has to be explained sufficiently, otherwise, the object of summary proceedings will be defeated. Furthermore, only Presiding Officer happened to be on leave while office remained open for filing/institution during this period. Petition for leave is time barred as delay not sufficiently explained. Muhammad Naeem V. Muhammad Javed Iqbal 2012 CLC 175 (Peshawar). ORDER 37- RULE 3 Guarantors claimed that they had claimed denial of liabilities by several letters , and notice to bank –it was duty of bank to deny and controvet same – no such step taken by bank-silence of bank would seriously reflect adversely, leave granted. 1994 CLC 1404 KAR ORDER 37- RULE 3 Leave was granted subject to depositing amount in question in court or bank-challenged this order in writ –validity in condition - no current valuation of mortgaged property available on record nor plaintiffs claimed its depreciation –petition converted into appeal and the same was allowed to the extent that defendant would deposit cash of specified amount for defending suit within 20 days. 1994 SCMR 512