1. The present revision application is directed against the concurrent findings of two Courts below by which the suit of the respondents 1 and 2, (hereinafter referred as the respondents) was decreed under Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. The facts giving rise to the present revision application are that the respondent filed suit for cancellation of documents, declaration and permanent injunction with the following prayers:
(a) To declare that plaintiffs are owners of S.Nos.127/3, 127/4, 128/1 and 128/2, 3, 4 of Deh Allah Rakhio Junejo, Taluka Mirokhan and the mutation order of defendants No,5 at the instance of defendants Nos.6 and 7 is illegal, mala fide, without lawful jurisdiction.
(b) To cancel the record of rights, which have been changed in favour of the defendants Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the suit property.
(c) To restrain the defendants from taking the possession of the suit property to plaintiffs. The applicants were served. They moved adjournment application for filing written statement, which was granted. The respondents Nos.3 to 6 who were defendants Nos.5 to 8 in the plaint, were made ex parte as they failed to file the written statement. Trial Court directed the applicants to file their written statement but they failed to do so, therefore, their side was closed. Subsequently, the applicants moved an application under Order IX, Rule 7, C.P.C. The same was dismissed for non- prosecution but it was restored on the application of applicants subject to payment of cost of Rs,200 with direction to the applicants to file the written statement within 15 days. The written statement was not filed but they moved an application for adjournment, which was granted, and on the adjourned hearing the applicants and their Advocate remained absent. Therefore, the suit was decreed under Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. The applicants challenged the decree of the trial Court but the appeal was dismissed under the impugned judgment and decree. Hence the present revision application. The learned Advocate for the applicants has stated that while invoking the provision of Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.0 the trial Court was required to pass an speaking order by directing the applicants to file the written statement and that too by mentioning points on which the written statement was required; that the trial Court did not perform the said function as there is no order showing the points on which the written statement was required therefore, the order is illegal. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the cases of Muhammad Saleem v. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan 1989 CLC 1883, and Sakhawatuddin v. Muhammad Iqbal 1987 SCM R 1365. The learned Advocate for the respondents has stated that the trial Court had specifically directed the applicants to file written statement but they failed to do so in spite of taking time, therefore, requirements of Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C., were fulfilled. He has supported the impugned decree. Learned Additional A.-G has adopted the arguments of the learned Advocate for the respondents and further added that there is no illegality in the impugned decree, as such he has supported the same. I have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on record and case-law cited at the bar. The provisions of Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C., were the subject-matter of interpretation before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The said provisions have been interpreted in the case of Mst. Hakumat Bibi v. Imamuddin PLD 1987 SC 22, Sakhawatuddin v.
2. Muhammad Iqbal 1987 SCM R 1365, Secretary Board of Revenue Punjab v. Khalid Ahmed Khan 1991 SCMR 2527, Azad Hussain v. Haji Muhammad Hussain PLD 1994 SC 874. All these authorities were considered in the case of Ayub Ali Rana v. Carlite S Punem, PLD 2002 SC 630. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ayoob Ali (supra) has approved the findings of the case of Sakhawatuddin (supra). From the said authority a portion of the report was relied upon, which reads as under: "There is another very important aspect of the matter. All the three types of written statements mentioned earlier do not entail penal consequences. Therefore, it would always be absolutely clear from the proceedings that the written statement on account of which penalty is sought to be imposed was 'required', by the Court. It was neither of right (rule 1) nor as result of permission (rule 9). The use of word 'required' is not without significance. It does not permit a routine order without application of mind to the 'requirement' and/or the need. Therefore, it is essential that whenever a written statement is to be made subject of the penal rule 10, there should be proof on record that the Court had `required' it by application of mind to the need and that too in a speaking order.
3. Without the same, many innocent parties would be trapped in a technicality without fully realizing the implications. In this connection, it is made clear that whenever adjournments are granted for production of written statement which can be filed as of right under rule 1 or which is permitted to be filed under rule 9 that would not satisfy the law regarding the 'requirement' of the Court. It is only the written statement which is 'required' and that too by 'the Court' by a speaking order, which would entail the penal consequences of rule 10 in these two cases it has been admitted before us that these requirements have not been fulfilled". Thus after considering all the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C., and earlier authorities, a rule has been laid down in the above case which is to be followed. In the case of Hakumat Bibi, Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C., was found to be legal. The facts of the said case were that second adjournment was granted to file written statement subject to payment of cost and it was made clear that no further adjournment would be granted. On the said adjourned date, the written statement was not filed, therefore, the Court proceeded to pronounce judgment under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C. An appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree, which was dismissed. The matter went to the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, where the decree was maintained.
4. Keeping in view the above facts and rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, I have examined the facts of the present case and I find that at the initial stage the trial Court directed the applicants to file the written statement, but they failed to do so, therefore, the trial Court closed their side. Subsequently, applicants moved an application under Order IX, Rule 7, C.P.C., but it was dismissed for non-prosecution. The same was restored on the request of the applicants. Thereafter, the matter was heard and the side of the applicants was opened for filing written statement on payment of cost of Rs,200 with direction that the written statement should be filed within a period of 15 days. The applicants did not file their written statement and again they moved adjournment application, which was granted meaning thereby the time of 15 days earlier granted was extended to the adjourned date. On that date, the applicants and their counsel remained absent, therefore, the trial Court pronounced judgment under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C. Above facts clearly show that the trial Court was conscious of the fact that the suit was of such a nature where the written statement was required to be filed, therefore, in this background the applicants were directed to file the written statement but they did not do so, therefore, their side was closed. However, it was reopened on payment of cost with further direction that the written statement should be filed within a period of 15 days. Thus order clearly indicates the conscious application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the trial Court was of the opinion that the written statement was required for the, just decision of the suit therefore, the trial Court was taking steps and giving opportunities to the applicants to file the written statement so that the suit might be decided on merits as it involved ownership rights of the respondents which were not only denied by the applicants but B record of rights was changed on the application of the applicants and further there was threat of dispossession of the respondents from the suit property by the applicants. However the applicants did not avail the said opportunities. From the above facts it is clear that the rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above referred authorities has been fully satisfied in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, both Courts below exercised their powers in accordance with law. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, they do not require any interference.
5. Consequently, the Revision Application is dismissed.