MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- On 1.7.2003, the respondent Muhammad Ali, the minor through his father Nisar Ahmed Warsi, filed a suit for the Specific Performance, asserting and claiming that the appellants vide an agreement to sell dated 5.4.2003, had agreed to sell to him their house/property bearing No. 65, Block B, New Muslim Town, Lahore, with the land underneath measuring one kanal, 2 marlas, 85 square feet, for a total consideration of Rs. 53,75,000/-, out of which, an amount of Rs. 8,75,000/- was paid as earnest/advance money, at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell, whereas, on the payment of the balance consideration, till 7.7.2003, the respondent was entitled to seek the finalization of the sale. Before the target date , the respondent got published a notice in the daily "Jang" dated 2.5.2003 informing/notifying the public at large, and inviting any objections qua the said transaction; thereafter a legal notice dated 10.5.2003, was also served upon the appellants, but without any results, therefore, in such situation, the respondent was constrained to file the afore-mentioned suit for specific performance.
2. The appellants were served and were represented before the Court on 22.7.2003 through a counsel, who filed a memo. Of appearance, and the case was adjourned for filing of the Wakalatnama and the written statement for 29.7.2003, but on that date, the written statement was not filed and the case was adjourned to 9.9.2003 for the said purpose. On this date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was taken up on 10.9.2003, when an application was moved by the appellants, seeking the adjournment for filing the written statement; the case was adjourned to 17.9.2003; again further adjournment was sought and the case was postponed for 27.9.2003, for the same object; on this date, as the written statement was not filed, resultantly, the learned Trial Court, by applying the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 10, CPC, struck off the defence of the appellants; thereafter, the respondent was required to produce his evidence in order to prove his case. The respondent examined five witnesses, which includes the marginal witnesses of the agreement to sell, the appellants for the purpose of cross-examining these witnesses, were given certain opportunities but they failed to avail, resultantly, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 6.3.2004, decreed the suit of the respondent. It may be pertinent to state here that against the order dated 27.9.2003, through which, the defence of the appellant was struck off, a Civil Revision No. 1939/2003, filed before this Court, was dismissed on 21.10.2003.
3. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellants states that sufficient opportunities were not given to the appellants, for the purpose of defending the case; it is also argued that according to settled law, the right of parties must be determined/adjudicated upon the merits, rather than knocking them on the procedural and the technical ground. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Order 8, Rule 10, empowers the Court to exercise two options i.e., either to pronounce the judgment by striking off the defence of the appellants or to pass such order in relation to the suit as the Court deemed fit; thus it is submitted that where the Court has not pronounced the judgment forthwith, and was inclined to postpone the matter for evidence of the respondents, it was incumbent upon the Court, n such a situation to have given further opportunity to the appellant to file the written statement. Lastly, it is submitted that the appellants have not been given adequate opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the respondent.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find sheer negligence of the appellants to pursue the matter, because ample opportunities as mentioned above, were given to them for filing of the written statement, stretching upon a period of more than two months; one of the orders of the Court in this behalf, is with the warning of last opportunity, but they failed for no cogent reason; further they unsuccessfully challenged the order dated 27.9.2003, before this Court, and thereafter, made statements before the Trial Court about the possibility of some amicable statement between the parties; and on 6.1.2004, a categorical statement was made by the appellant's side that a compromise has been effected and they are prepared to give the possession of the property to the respondent, but require some time enabling them to arrange for an alternate accommodation. These facts when taken in totality clearly show, that the appellants were never serious in contesting the matter.
5. Obviously, in such a situation, where the appellants deliberately failed to file the written statement to defend a cause against them and the Court after providing adequate opportunity in this behalf, was justified in invoking the provisions of the Order VIII, Rule 10. We are not convinced that while striking off the defence of the appellants, the Court was bound to pronounce the judgment forthwith and if it was not being so done, the case should have been postponed for the written statement of the appellants, by granting them a further opportunity. Suffice it to say that the discretion about the option of the Court, to pass such orders as it thinks fit, infact empowers the Court that despite striking off the defence of the defendant, the Court may still require the plaintiff to satisfy the Court about the genuineness of his claim. And this is exactly what the Court has done in the present case, when it required the plaintiff to produce the evidence, provided opportunities to the appellants for cross-examining these witnesses, which they failed to avail.
In the light of above, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree, calling for interference. This appeal thus has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.