MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- This appeal has been filed to call in question the order dated 20.10.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st class Islamabad whereby, the defence of the defendant/appellate was struck off, failing to file written statement on the given date i.e. 20.10.2004 by the Trial Court.
2. This FAO has been filed by the appellant which is incompetent and not maintainable as Order 43, Rule 1-B, CPC has provided appeal only against if the order is assed under Rule 10 Order 8, CPC, pronouncing the judgment against a party. Here in this case, the judgment has not been pronounced against appellant and the Court has only struck off the right of defence of the appellant, hence, the appeal being incompetent is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.
3. The suit for Specific Performance of the contract has been filed by Muhammad Bashir Khan plaintiff-respondent (herein) against present appellant. The appellant was served who appeared in Court on 15.9.2004 through counsel and he was directed to file written statement and reply to the application. The case was adjourned to 5.10.2004 and on the said date neither written statement nor reply to the application was filed and an adjournment ,was sought to file the same. The request was acceded to and the Court granted last opportunity to the appellant and adjourned the case to 20.10.2004.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that neither the plaintiff nor his counsel was present on 20.10.2004 and ex parte order was passed. Further argued that plaintiff and his counsel understood the date as 30.10.2004. This argument of learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived as on 5.10.2004 when the case was adjourned to 20.10.2004, the counsel for the parties were present as is evidence from the ,order sheet annexed with this appeal. The appellant is defaulter in filing the written statement the direction of Court despite last opportunity granted to him.
5. Learned counsel when confronted with the amendment made in rule 1 of Order 8, CPC that "(ii) provided further that not more than two adjournments shall be granted for presenting the written statement." Could not respond and failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order and that the same has been passed without lawful authority and without jurisdiction. The Court has rightly passed the impugned order by striking off the defence of defendant-appellant.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this FAO being devoid of merit is dismissed in limine.