Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 1995 SCMR 45
Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year of Decision: 1994
Decision Date: 1994-03-27
Parties: M. ASHRAF PARWAZ vs Prof. ASGHAR ALI NAAZ
This judicial decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 1994-03-27. The matter involves proceedings between M. ASHRAF PARWAZ and Prof. ASGHAR ALI NAAZ, officially reported as 1995 SCMR 45. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
Case cited as 1995 SCMR 45
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Rafique Tarar, Manzoor Hussain Sial, Saad Saood Jan Title: M. ASHRAF PARWAZ vs Prof. ASGHAR ALI NAAZ Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 519-L of 1993 Date of Judgment:1994-03-27 Reported As: 1995 SCMR 45 Result: Leave refused
Judgment ORDER ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The respondent filed a suit under Order XXXVII, Civil Procedure Code, against the petitioner essentially for the refund of security in the sum of Rs,30,000 which he had deposited with the latter at the time of his appointment-as principal of a college administered by him. The petitioner did not seek leave to appear and defend the suit within the prescribed period. Subsequently, he filed a belated application in this regard which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The trial Court then decreed the suit of the respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court, but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. 2. There is no satisfactory explanation why the petitioner did not seek leave to appear and defend the suit within the prescribed period. The medical certificate which he filed before the learned District Judge did not cover the relevant period. The District Judge was therefore right in not entertaining his application in this regard on the ground of limitation. 3. In support of this petition it is alleged that the respondent owed to the petitioner a large sum of money which he had embezzled and that the petitioner had filed a suit against him for the recovery of the same. This may be so, but the petitioner has yet to establish that the respondent had embezzled the money belonging to the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner does not dispute that he had obtained Rs,30,000 by way of security from the respondent which was refundable to the latter on the termination of his employment. It does not seem appropriate in the circumstances of this case that the respondent should be made to wait in seeking refund of the security amount till the suit filed by the petitioner is decided. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.