' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Sindh High Court judgment, dated 9-3-2005 dismissing their civil revision application directed against concurrent findings of two Courts whereby suit filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 was decreed against them under the provisions of order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C.
2. Petitioners are the defendants in a suit for declaration, cancellation of documents and permanent injunction seeking the following reliefs:- "(a) To declare that plaintiffs are owners of S.No,127/3, 127/4, 128/1 and 128/2, 3, 4 of Deh Allah Rakhio Junejo, Taluka Mirokhan and the mutation order of defendant 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."
3. After the service of summons, they moved an application for filing written statement, which was granted. Official respondents being least interested were proceeded ex parte on their failure to submit any written statement. Trial Court having allowed the petitioners to file written statement, on their failure closed their side. An application for setting aside the order in terms of Order IX, rule 7, C.P.C. Was moved dismissed for default and restored subject to payment of costs of Rs,200 with direction to file the written statement within 15 days. Petitioners asked for another adjournment, which was allowed but without any positive response, leading to the decree in the suit, as aforesaid. Appeal against the decree and civil revision against the appellate order having failed they now seek leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that there was no positive and speaking order passed by the trial Court requiring the petitioners to file a parawise written statement, therefore, penal consequences within the contemplation of Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C. Would not follow. According to the learned counsel, this was a case of pure and simple adjournment owing to inability of the petitioners to persuade their counsel to prepare a written statement without the receipt of professional fee. There appears to be some force in the submission. We may refer to the law declared by this Court in Sakhawatuddin v. Muhammad Iqbal 1987 SCM R 1365, Ayub Ali Rana v.
Carlite S. Pune PLD 2002 SC 630 and Pehalwan v. Ali Ahmad 2005 SCM R 1044, which undoubtedly supports the proposition of law advanced at the Bar.
5. We, would, therefore, grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court. As a short question of law is involved in this appeal, office is directed to list the appeal for hearing within six months from today.
C.M.A. No,455-K of 2006
6. Notice.