2017 PLP 1841 (SCMR)

IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.

Petitioners seek leave to appeal against an order dated 15.03.2013, passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. Through the impugned order, a Civil Revision (C.R.No.1459 of 2011) filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the grievance of the petitioners was that their right to file a written statement in a suit for specific performance was closed by the trial Court in exercise of its powers under Order VIII, Rule 10 of C.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order was harsh, the petitioners were not granted sufficient time to file their written statement and prays that another opportunity may be granted to them to do so, subject to payment of costs.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. It appears that a suit for specific performance was filed on 13.10.2010. Notices were directed to be issued to the Respondents (petitioners herein). On behalf of the petitioners, an Advocate/counsel filed a memo of appearance on 17.01.2011, whereafter the matter was adjourned to 14.02.2011. On 14.02.2011, the matter was again adjourned for filing of a written statement for 05.04.2011. The needful was not done on such date. More time was granted as requested and the case was adjourned to 20.05.2011. Even on that date, written statement was not filed and further time was sought which was again granted and the matter adjourned to 08.06.2011. On the said date, yet again the written statement was not filed. This time the trial Court disallowed the request for more time and proceeded to close the right of the petitioners to file a written statement. The said order could have been challenged by way of a revision, but this was not done. Instead, an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Layyah which was dismissed. The said order was challenged by way of a civil revision. The High Court while observing that the civil revision was not competent and a constitutional petition could have been filed, proceeded to decide the matter on merits by holding that the petitioners had been(sic.) they had failed to do and the Civil Court rightly exercised its powers under Order VIII, Rule 10 of C.P.C.

5. Order VIII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. prescribes a timeframe for filing a written statement which cannot ordinarily exceed 30 days. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioners were granted at least four opportunities spread over a period of about five months to file the written statement. However, despite the time given and indulgence shown by the Court, the petitioners failed to file their written statement without any lawful justification. Where law prescribes a time for doing a certain act, the same should ordinarily be adhered to unless cogent reasons and lawful justification is presented before the Court justifying an extension of such time. No such justification was pleaded before the trial, appellate or revisional Court. Even before us, other than submitting that one more opportunity may be granted against payment of costs, the learned counsel did not furnish any reason or justification for the petitioners' failure to file their written statement despite repeated adjournments granted by the Court.

6. We also find that the petitioners were granted sufficient time and ample opportunity to file their written statement. The trial Court was quite justified and within its powers to take action under Order VIII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. Furthermore we have not found any legal, procedural or jurisdictional defect, error or flaw in the order of the trial Court as upheld by the High Court that may furnish justification for interference by this Court in exercise of our powers under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

7. For reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MWA/R-8/SC Petition dismissed.