' DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J --- Defence of the petitioners was struck off under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C. On 16-11-2005 by the learned Civil Judge-WI, Peshawar because despite of directions given they failed to submit the same. Learned Additional District Judge-I, Peshawar confirmed the said judgment through judgment and decree, dated 16-11-2005 hence, this petition of revision.
' Both the parties appeared before the Deputy Registrar of this Court on pre-admission notice issued by the Court, on 7-5-2006. The parties were given "Parcha Peshi" while case was listed in their presence before the Court for hearing on 27-6-2006 i,e, today. Several calls were made but none appeared from the respondent's side, therefore, they are placed ex parte.
2. True that the petitioners did not appropriately comply with the order of the trial Court and failed to submit written statements, therefore, the discretionary powers were exercised under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C., however, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Court of appeal conveniently ignored that in the application filed under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Important questions of law were raised and in the interest of justice the trial Court could competently treat the same as a written statement.
3. The Code of Civil Procedure is primarily meant for streamlining and channelizing the smooth administration of justice. The technicalities contained in the various provisions thereof were enacted with the above object. The compliance therewith will become mandatory in case some vested right accrues to the opposite party due to the negligent and wilful omission of the party at fault or compliance with the same becomes essential for securing the ends of justice or on the ground of public policy. The same are not to be used as thwarting/checking devices by stifling down the process of justice itself. In the case of Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382 the Honourable Supreme Court laid down the following golden principle:-- "the proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their rights. All technicalities have to be avoided unless it be essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy---Any system which by giving effect to the form and not to the substance defeats substantive rights and is defective to that extent."
4. No doubt under Order VIII certain conditions are provided which have to be fulfilled while filing written statement but the object behind the same is that the defendant like the plaintiff, shall fairly disclose and place its case/defence before the Court in clear terms so that the opposite party shall know about the defence and that proper issues are framed for recording pro and contra evidence thereon so that the trial sails smoothly and within the prescribed parameters. The Court is not denuded of its authority to treat even a miscellaneous application as a written statement if it raises important questions of law or of facts which can be reduced into issues. In this case too, the trial Court was not only competent but was under obligations to have treated the petition under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. As a written statement. '
5. Both the learned Courts below have conveniently ignored the salutary principle of justice as well as of law on the subject and in this way have exercised jurisdiction in a manner causing miscarriage of justice.
' For what has been discussed above and to firmly secure the ends of justice on the basis of principle laid down by the apex Court in Imtiaz Ahmad case (supra), this petition is allowed, both the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court with the direction that the application of the petitioners filed under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Shall be treated as a written statement and if it is deemed proper that points of law shall be decided first then, the trial Court shall act according to Order XIV, rule 2, C.P.C. No order as to costs.