P L D (Rev (PLP)

FIDA HASAN, F. C.--‑The Commissioner Multan has made this reference vide his note dated 16th July, 1953, recommend ing that the revision petition of Bahdri be accepted under section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and the case be remanded to the Assistant Collector II Grade for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to ‑file a written statement and to adduce his defence.

2. The facts in brief are that Manak had brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 450 as arrears of rent for Kharif 1951. When the petitioner (defendant) appeared before the Assis tant Collector on 21st June, 1952, he made a statement before the Court to the effect that he did not wish to file a written statement but that his statement may be recorded. Accordingly, his statement was recorded, which was to the effect that while he was a tenant of the plaintiff‑respondent for the harvest in suit he had not paid him the rent for certain crops including maize, Bajra and sugar‑cane. Ire also expressed his willingness to pair the rent in accordance with the produce estimate worked out by the office Kanungo. The Court then framed one issue, namely "What was the amount of the rent due to the plaintiff in accordance with the produce estimate? ". A produce estimate was duly obtained from the office Kanungo, according to which the share of the plaintiff worked out to be Rs. 553‑15‑

7. When the parties appeared before the Court again, the defendant made a statement that he has no evidence to produce on that day, but if the Court so desired, he could produce evidence. Thereon the Court passed an order awarding a decree of Rs. 450 with costs in favour of the plaintiff (respondent). The decretal amount was obviously restricted to the plaintiff's claim in the palint. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector who dismissed it.

3. In the revision proceedings the petitioner took the plea that he had not been given an opportunity to file a written statement and also to produce his evidence in support of his case. The learned Commissioner, after hearing the parties, was of the opinion that an irregularity had been committed by the trial Court in not allowing the petitioner to file his written statement.

4. After examining the facts of the case, I am of the view that no irregularity was committed in this case, particularly when the petitioner had made a clear statement at the very first hearing that he had no written statement to make. Under Order 8, rule X, C. P. C., it is up to the defendant to present a written statement with his defence at or before the first hearing of the suit unless the Court A requires him to submit a statement at some subsequent date. In view of the petitioner's statement before the Court, there was hardly any occasion for the latter to call upon him to submit a written statement. It is, thus, obvious, that the petitioner's case from the very beginning was that he was prepared to pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiff‑respondent in accordance with the amount worked out on the basis of the produce estimate. In these circumstances, no infringement of the law or failure of justice has occurred as to merit interference in terms of section 84 of the Tenancy Act. I decline to interfere and reject the petition. Parties to be informed. A. H. Petition rejected.