1990 CLC 349 (PLP)

(i) Written statement.‑‑ The defendant may, and, if so required by the s Court, shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence; Provided that the period allowed for filing the written statement shall not ordinarily exceed ninety days. (2) ......................................... (3) ......................................... , (4) .......................................... , (5) .............................................................. (6) .............................................................. (7) .............................................................. (8) ........................................................... , (9) ........................................................... _ (10) Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.‑‑ Where any party from whom a written statement is so required fails to present the same within the time fixed by the Court, The Court may pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit." The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the case of Mst. Bilqees Begum v. Syed Ali Turab and others 1980 C L C 930, wherein M.S.H. Quraishi, J. (as he then was) has held as under:‑‑ "

7. If the arrangement of Order VIII is carefully examined, it would become clear that Rules 2 to 8 serve only to qualify and clarify Rule

2. They are in fact an extension of that rule. I find great force in the observation of Ayling, J. that if they were to be treated as part of Rule 1 and if rules 9 and 10 were numbered as Rules 2 and 3 it would be hard to contend that Rule 3 applied only to Rule 2 and not to Rule

1. I am, therefore, in respectful agreement with the view repeatedly taken in this Court that the words `so required' used in Rule 10 do reach and cover Rule 1 also. Even otherwise, it is inconceivable that the Code while providing a drastic penal measure for default in presenting a subsequent or additional written statement, would not take care of a default in filing the main written statement. In this regard, too, I respectfully endorse the observation of Ayling, J. which found echo also in the aforecited case of Sh. Abdul Saboor etc. in the following words:‑‑ `The situation contemplated in Rule 1 is more serious than the one in Rule

9. To apply, under the circumstances, Rule 10 only to a case covered by Rule 9 and not to a case to which Rule 1 applies, will result in inconsistent positions. Rule 10 in fact applies both to Rules 9 and 1'. I am, therefore, confirmed in my view that the interpretation put by this Court from time to time in regard to the scope of Rule 10 is correct, and that it covers a failure to file written statement required by Court under Rule 1 also."

5. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the defendant having failed to file the written statement in the present suit, the suit has been properly placed in Court for final disposal and there being no rebuttal to the case of the plaintiff, the suit is to be decreed. I accordingly decree the suit with costs as prayed. H.B.T./U‑64/K Suit decreed.