2010 PLP 3042 (YLR)

ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, J.

This judgment shall also dispose of R.F.A. No.150 of 2010 with the same title, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals.

2. Questioned in these appeals are the judgments and decrees dated 9-2-2010 passed by Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi-III, Chitral in two separate suits of plaintiff-respondent against defendants-appellants for declaration, recovery and injunction in terms of the details available in respective plaints of the two suits.

3. Facts precisely stated are that plaintiff-respondent through his civil suit bearing No.350/1 of 2007 and now subject matter of R.F.A. No.149/2010 sued the defendants-appellants for declaration, recovery of Rs.45,88,000/- and injunction, while through suit No.349/1 of 2007, now subject matter of R.F.A. No.150/2010 sued the defendants-appellants for declaration, recovery of Rs.12,06,666 and permanent injunction in terms of details available in the plaints of the respective suits.

4. After receiving written statements from the defendants-appellants and framing of issues, evidence of the plaintiff-respondent was recorded and concluded on 30-6-2009 whereafter the case was adjourned for evidence of the defendants-appellants to 11-7-2009, on which date because of non-availability of the defendants-appellants evidence, case was adjourned to 6-8-2009 on payment of costs of Rs.3,000 and also notice under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. was issued to them.

5. On 6-8-2009, evidence in spite of presence could not be recorded as both the learned counsel for the parties remained busy in their other cases and accordingly the case was adjourned to 8-8-2009 on which date cases were adjourned to 24-8-2009 as the parties stated before the Court that they would attempt a patch up. On 24-8-2009, once again the case was adjourned to 31-8-2009 for the same purpose or in the alternative for evidence. Then vide order sheet No. 8 dated 26-8-2009 in view of order received from District Judge / Zilla Qazi, Chitral, Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, Chitral transferred the case to Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi-III, Chitral who on receipt of the case files when took the same on 31-8-2009 ordered its registration and then without caring for issuing a notice to defendants-appellants who were not present before him on that day, proceeded to apply the penal provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. and struck off right of the defendants-appellants to produce evidence. The case A was accordingly adjourned to 11-9-2009 whereafter it was adjourned a number of times but ultimately through the impugned judgment and decree dated 9-2-2010 decreed both the suits of the plaintiff-respondent which have been questioned through the above appeals before this Court.

6. Admittedly, the two suits besides being for declaration and permanent injunction also pertained to recovery of huge amount from the defendants-appellants as detailed in para-3 of this judgment and not only pleadings had been reduced into proper issues but plaintiff-respondent had produced sufficient evidence in support of his claims but the trial Court without resorting to the appraisal of evidence so produced by the plaintiff-respondent or returning his findings on the issues framed in terms of Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C., through his slipshod judgment and decree, decreed both the suits. Not only this but the manner and the way in which the defendants-appellants were treated in the suits and ultimately penal action taken against them under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. speaks volumes about the unnecessary haste and undue interest by the learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi-III, Chitral. Such a disposal of disputes between the contestants can hardly be termed to be a judicial disposal and thus cannot be maintained on any principles governing the administration of justice.

7. The Courts administering justice' are required to decide the disputes purely on merits and strictly in accordance with law, without caring for any other consideration, In the instant two cases neither the merits were kept into consideration, nor the law while passing the two impugned judgments and decrees in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

8. No doubt, defendants-appellants had not shown due interest and deligence in defending the suits but still when decision on merits is the most cherished goal of law, decisions of the nature impugned in these two appeals can hardly be maintained.

9. Thus while allowing both these appeals, the impugned judgments and decrees dated 9-2-2010 in both the suits are set aside on payment of costs of Rs.5,000 in each case, to be paid by defendants-appellants to plaintiff-respondent and both the suits are restored to their original number and sent back to Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, Chitral who shall himself proceed with the same in accordance with law from the stage when penal action against defendants-appellants was taken under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. and allow the defendants-appellants to adduce evidence as per their choice but positively conclude the same by 30th September, 2010 and the trial Court i.e. Senior Civil Judge, Chitral to decide these suits afresh in accordance with law and strictly on merits by 15th October, 2010 under intimation to Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

10. Parties are directed to appear before Senior Civil Judge / Aala Illaqa Qazi, Chitral on 17-8-2010 for further proceedings. Office shall immediately send the record of the Trial Court along with copy of this judgment to Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, Chitral, for compliance. R.F.A. Allowed. H.B.T./264/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order remanded.