Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2035 2004 SLD 2035 2004 CLC 1198
Lahore High Court

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JJ
Muhammad Abdul Hayee Alvi for Appellants. Ibadur Rehman Lodhi for
Respondents. Nemo for others.

MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and another

VS

MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 11 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VIII, R. 1----Filing of written statement, requirement of---Order VIII, R.10, C.P.C. authorizes a Court to pronounce against any party from whom the written statement is so required and who fails to present the same within time fixed by the Court. Sardar Sakhawat-ud-Din and others v. Muhammad Iqbal and 4 others 1987 SCMR 1365 and The Secretary, Board of Revenue v. Khalid Ahmad Khan 1991 SCMR 2527 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VIII, Rr.1 & 10---Interpretation of Rr.1 & 10, O.VIII, C.P.C.--­Filing of written statement, requirement of---Striking off the defence of the defendants---Suit for possession through partition by the plaintiffs--­Trial Court struck off the defence of the defendants, after a number of adjournments, for trying to delay the proceedings by not filing the written statement---Validity---Plain reading of O.VIII, R.10, C.P.C. shows that the same restricts the powers of the Court in the matter of time to be allowed for filing the written statement and further the number of adjournments that can be granted for presenting the written statement---No consequence has been provided in the C.P.C. where the Court proceeds to grant time in excess of 30 days or grant more than 2 adjournment---Only provisions to be resorted to and the circumstances warranting striking off the defence of the defendants are provided in the R.10, O.VIII, C.P.C which unlike R.1 of O.VIII, C.P.C., speaks of requirement of the Court which was not existing in the present case--­Written statement was found to be filed by the defendants and there was no order requiring written statement within the, meaning of law---Order of the Trial Court striking off the defence and pronouncing the against the defendants, in circumstances, was illegal and void. JUDGMENT MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- For the order we propose to pass in this case, we will not be referring the pleaded facts in detail. Suffice it to say that on 19-1-1995 the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 to 6 filed a suit against the appellants and the remaining respondents for separate possession through partition of their 2/13 shares in the suit property…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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