| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 723 2008 SLD 723 2008 CLC 580 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.10543 of 2007, decision dated: 29-10-2007
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Writ Petition No.10543 of 2007, decision dated: 29-10-2007
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD WARIS
VS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHUSHAB and 2 others
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VIII,r.10
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VIII,r.10
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VIII, Rr.1 & 10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Written statement---Availing of eight adjournments by defendant including a last opportunity granted 'subject to payment of costs of Rs.200 with a note of warning that in case of non-filing of written statement on next date, his defence would be closed---Closure of defendant's right to submit written statement on such next date---Validity---Trial Court had shown extraordinary indulgence and leniency to defendant by providing him eight opportunities within a span of 7 months and 20 days for filing written statement---Conduct of defendant showed that he was reluctant to file written statement and had disobeyed various orders of Trial Court---Trial Court had proceeded in right direction in passing impugned order---High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances. Nusrat Ali v. Judge, Family Court and others 2006 MLD 420 ref. Naseem Ullah Khan Niazi for Petitioner. ORDER MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Present constitutional petition proceeds against judgment, dated 3-9-2007, whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed petitioner's revision petition and maintained order, dated 18-5-2007, through which the learned Civil Judge, in exercise of powers under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C. closed petitioner's right to submit written statement. 2. The learned counsel, while admitting that eight opportunities to file written statement were provided to the petitioner, states that the learned trial Court should have decided the suit on merits and the petitioner was non-suited on mere technicalities. He has relied upon Nusrat Ali v. Judge, Family Court and others 2006 MLD 420. 3. I have beard the learned counsel, examined the available record and perused the order-sheet of the learned trial Court with the assistance of the learned counsel. The case was firstly adjourned from 28-9-2006 to 14-11-2006 for filing written statement, however, on the said date, written statement was not filed and the case was adjourned for the same proceedings to 18-12-2006, on which date, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. On 26-2-2007, the case…
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