1983 PLP 3079 (CLC)

‑‑O. XVII, r. 1‑Adjournments‑District Judge, in revision petition passing orders that petitioner (minors) may file written statement as prayed for by them and Civil Court hear case on day to day basis‑Petitioners on two subsequent dates on pretext that they were not given copy of plaint not filing written statement and Civil Judge without adjourning case further fixing date for final hearing ‑Plaintiff only duty bound to give copy of plaint when suit was instituted and he did so and subsequently it was not imperative on him to supply them with copy unless directed by Court‑Petitioners putting in their appearance before Civil Judge on dates of hearing but failing to voice their claim of providing copy of plaint‑No sufficient cause shown by petitioners for grant of adjournments Petition dismissed.‑[Adjournment.]. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑ O. XVII, r. 1‑Adjournment ‑ Where sufficient cause not shown for grant of adjournment, Court to proceed with suit forth with.‑[Adjournment]. Qaiser Mahmud Shaft for Petitioners. A constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been moved for a declaration to the effect that the orders dated 20th February, 1982 and 7th September, 1982 by respondents Nos. 2 and 1, respectively, are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The relevant facts of this case in brief are that Ch. Ghulam Muhammad respondent No. 3, who was plaintiff in the original suit had sought the assistance of the learned trial Court for a declaration to the effect that he happened to be an owner of three‑fourth share in Khata No. 438 measuring 209 kanals and 5 marlas. He also assailed a decree dated 29th April, 1972 passed by the learned Civil Court, Khanpur in a case namely, Muhammad Yasin v. Ghulam Muhammad and the validity of mutations No. 1685 and 1690 was also questioned.

3. The minor petitioners were represented by Mr. Muhammad Afzal Saleem Advocate, their guardian ad litem who had filed a written state ment on their behalf. Subsequently, Ghulam Khan, the father of Saifullah, Habibullah, Amanullah and Nazir Ahmad was appointed as their guardian ad litem, whereas Muhammad Tufail, the father of Abdul Khaliq minor was directed to represent his son Abdul Khaliq. The minor petitioners represented that may be allowed to file the written statement afresh which was rejected by the learned Civil Judge on 13th October, 1981. They filed a revision petition and the learned Additional District Judge II, on 31st January, 1980 ordered that the written statement may be filed by the minor defendants and day to day hearing may be con ducted in the said case. The parties were directed to appear before the Civil Judge on 16th February, 1982. On that date and on a subsequent date, i.e., 20th February, 1982 the written statement 'on behalf of the minors was not filed on the pretext that they were not given the copy of the plaint. The learned Civil Judge on 20th February, 1982 did not adjourn the case for filing of the written statement and fixed 31st March, 1982 as the date of hearing final arguments. Against the said order this constitutional petition has been moved.

4. The plaintiff was duty bound to give a copy of plaint to each defendant when the suit was instituted. He did so and when the new guardians ad litem of the minors were directed to file their written state ment, it was not imperative on the plaintiff to supply them with a copy of the plaint unless directed by the Court. The order of the learned first appellate Court dated 31st January, 1982 is indicative of the fact that on 16th February, 1982 the parties were to appear before the‑ lower Court meaning thereby that the written statement was to be filed by the defen dants. The petitioners could have requested for a copy of the plaint on that day. The parties appeared on 16th February, 1:82 before the Civil Judge and the petitioners did not voice any prayer for having a copy of the plaint. They were directed to file the written statement on 20th Feb ruary, 1982. On 20th February, 1982 they claimed that they should be provided with a copy of the plaint so that they may file a written state ment, This prayer was disallowed. The learned trial Court has avoided the 'bide and seek' game of the petitioners. They did not care to inspect the file in order to put in a written statement. The appellate Court was conscious of the fact that the case should be disposed of expeditiously. Even sub‑rule 3 of rule I of Order XVII C.P.C indicates that where sufficient cause is not shown for the grant of an adjournment under sub- rule 1, the Court shall proceed with the suit forthwith. The learned trial Court had the jurisdiction to proceed with the suit forthwith and sufficient cause was not shown for the grant of an adjournment. In this manner, the impugned order cannot be termed as one without lawful authority and of no legal effect. A suitor is not allowed to make a mockery of the proceedings. This writ petition is not competent and is dismissed in limine. M.Y.M. Petition dismissed.