2005 PLP 1044 (SCMR)
PEHALWAN and others — Petitioners Versus ALI AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1044 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | PEHALWAN and others — Petitioners Versus ALI AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1044 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1044 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1044 (SCMR) (PEHALWAN and others — Petitioners Versus ALI AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Fazal-e-Mehmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Rana M. Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th January, 2003.
- Mian Fazal‑e‑Mehmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28-6-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in F.A.O. No.60. of 1999).
O. VIII, R. 10
Amended written statement, non-filing of
Defendants could not file amended written statement on two dates resultantly, Trial Court struck off the defence and suit was decreed against them
Order passed by Trial Court was maintained by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction
Trial Court acted in oblivion of the factual position in directing defendants to file amended written statement as if a written statement had already been filed
Even otherwise orders of both the dates did not spell out clearly that filing of written statement was positively required by Trial Court-- In the facts and circumstances of the present case, provisions of O.VIII, R.10 C.P.C. were not attracted to strike off the defence of defendants by Trial Court
Judgments passed by Trial Court and High Court were not in conformity with the law laid down by Supreme Court
Judgment passed by High Court was set aside, the appeal of the defendants was allowed and the case was remanded to Trial Court for filing of written statement by the defendants-- -Appeal was allowed. Col. (Retd.) Ayub Ali Rana v. Dr. Carlite S. Pune and another PLD 2002 SC 630 fol.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Fazal‑e‑Mehmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Rana M. Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th January, 2003. FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 28‑6‑1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in F.A.O. No.60 of 1999.
2. The respondent filed, before the Civil Judge, Mian Channu, District Khanewal, a suit for specific performance of agreement, dated 12‑1‑1991 for the sale of the suit property. The trial Court, by order, dated 2‑12‑1998, struck off the defence of the petitioners for failure to file an amended written statement in the civil suit. The petitioners filed F.A.O. No.60 of 1999 which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, by the impugned order, dated 28‑6‑1999. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the adjournment granted by the trial Court for filing the written statement could not be treated to be the last one. The trial Court had not made it clear that no further opportunity would be granted It was further submitted that it was not a case where the filing of a written statement had been required by the trial Court in terms of Order VIII, rules, 1, 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The learned counsel lastly contended that the impugned judgment was not sustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Col. (Retd.) Ayub Ali Rana v. Dr. Carlite S. Pune and another PLD 2002 SC 630.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on 21‑10‑1998 the trial Court had directed the petitioners to file a written statement on 25‑11‑1998 but they failed to do so. Then the case was adjourned for the same purpose and was fixed for hearing for 2‑2‑1998. Since the petitioners had failed to comply with the order of the Court, therefore, their defence was rightly struck off under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. In our view the trial Court acted in oblivion of the factual position in directing the petitioners to file an amended written statement as, if a written statement had already been filed. Even otherwise the orders dated 21‑10‑1998 and 25‑11‑1998 do not spell out clearly that the filing of a written statement was positively required by the Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the provisions of Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C. were not attracted to strike off the defence of the petitioners by the trial Court. The impugned judgment is not conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Col. (Retd.). Ayub Ali Rana A (supra).
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal, the impugned judgment, dated 28‑6‑1999 is set aside and the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. Resultantly, the petitioners shall be permitted to file a written statement within such time as may be fixed by the trial Court. M.H./P‑95/S Appeal allowed.