| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1252 2017 SLD 1252 2017 PLJ 545 |
W.P. No. 3471 of 2007, decided on 30.1.2017. Date of hearing: 30.1.2017.
HABIB ULLAH AMIR, J.
Ch. Saleem Akhtar Warraich, Advocate for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent No. 2.
TMA, etc. . ers
VS
M/S. AKRAM & CO., etc. . --Respondents
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) --.-- --.-- O.VII R. 10 --.-- Right to file written statement, struck of --.-- Suit for rendition of account --.-- Irreparable loss --.-- Requirement of law --.-- No specific order in respect to supply of copy of plaint was passed --.-- Validity --.-- It is now settled principle of law that Rule 10 of Order 8 CPC applies only to a specific requirement by Court for written statement --.-- Summons were not duly annexed with copy of plaint and same was received by petitioners subsequently and there is no specific order in respect to supply of copy of plaint and in circumstances/when petitioners had not received copy of plaint, still they had time to file written statement and written reply within specified period under provisions of CPC but such fact was neither considered by Civil Judge nor Addl. District Judge. ORDER The petitioners have assailed order dated 31.05.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan, whereby right of the petitioners to file written statement was struck of and judgment dated 26.05.2007 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Multan whereby order passed by learned Civil Judge was upheld. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1, M/s. Akram & Company instituted a suit for rendition of accounts before the learned Civil Judge, Multan. On 06.05.2006 learned counsel for the petitioners appeared and submitted memo. of appearance, whereafter he was directed to submit written reply and written statement within two days i.e. till 13.05.2006 and afterwards case was adjourned to 17.05.2006, 24.05.2006, 29.05.2006 and 31.05.2006. However, the petitioners failed to file written reply and written statement and the learned Civil Judge struck of the defence and feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed revision petition which remained pending in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Multan, who dismissed the same, hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under the law, the defendants/petitioners had right to submit written statement within three months, whereas the defence was struck of within 20 days in a hasty manner without affording the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492