Mian Ahmed VS Mukhtar Ahmed Tarar etc

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

C.R.No.249 of 2019 Mian Ahmad Khan Versus Mukhtar Ahmad Tarar and others S. No. of order Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel / proceedings Proceedings where necessary. 29.07.2021 Rana Rashid Javed, Advocate for the petitioner, Respondent No.1 in-person.

Through the instant civil revision petition, the petitioner, Mian Ahmad Khan, impugns the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Islamabad whereby written statement filed by him was returned on the ground that the same had not been filed within a period of one month as directed by the learned Civil Court.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the written statement had been filed by the petitioner before the learned Civil Court prior to the framing of issues; that no substantive step had been taken in the proceedings before the filing of the written statement; and that the learned Civil Court erred by discarding / returning the written statement filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the civil revision petition to be allowed and for the impugned order dated 29.03.2019 to be set-aside.

3.On the other hand, respondent No.1 appeared in-person and submitted that it was obligatory on the petitioner to have filed his written statement within the period prescribed in Order VIII, Rule 1 C.P.C.; that the learned Civil Court did not commit any jurisdictional irregularity by returning the written statement filed by the petitioner on the ground that it had not been filed within the period prescribed by law; and that the learned Civil Court had given ample opportunities

to the petitioner to file written statement. Respondent No.1 prayed for the civil revision petition to be dismissed.

4.I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 and have perused the record with their able assistance.

5.The record shows that respondent No.1 / plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, recovery, mandatory and permanent injunction against inter alia the petitioner / defendant No.1 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Islamabad. The petitioner tendered appearance on 08.10.2015 but it was not until 29.07.2017 that he filed a written statement.

6.Respondent No.2 / defendant No.2 had been proceeded against ex-parte whereas respondent No.3 / defendant No.3 had earlier filed a written statement.

7.On 21.02.2017, respondent No.1 filed an application for striking off the petitioner’s right of defense on the ground that he had not filed the written statement within the period prescribed by law.

9.After the said application was filed, the learned Civil Court, vide order dated 10.07.2017, gave a last and final opportunity to the petitioner to file a written statement. As mentioned above, the petitioner filed the written statement on 29.07.2017. I am of the view that the order of the learned Civil Court giving the petitioner a last and final opportunity to file a written statement had rendered respondent No.1’s application for striking off the petitioner’s right of defense as infructuous. Therefore, the learned Civil Court committed a jurisdictional irregularity by returning the petitioner’s written statement after it had been

filed pursuant to the order passed by the learned Civil Court.

10.Be that as it may, the Courts ought to endeavor to ensure that pleadings in civil litigation are completed at the earliest so that issues are framed and the trial commences. Indeed the proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. provides that the period allowed for filing the written statement shall ordinarily not exceed thirty days. The Court does have the power to extend the time provided in the said provision for the filing of a written statement but it may not do so in the ordinary course or in routine but for plausible reasons. Furthermore, the extension in time for the filing of the written statement should only be for a reasonable period. The practice of adjournments after adjournments for the filing of the written statement deserves condemnation in the strongest terms.

11.In view of the above, the instant revision petition is allowed; and the impugned order dated 29.03.2019 is set-aside subject to the payment of costs amounting to Rs.25,000/- payable by the petitioner to respondent No.1 on the next date of hearing before the learned Civil Court. These costs are being imposed because the petitioner had inordinately delayed the filing of the written statement.

(MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB)

JUDGE

Sultan*