' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- Present constitutional petition proceeds against judgment, dated 3-9- 2007, whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed petitioner's revision petition and maintained order, dated 18-5-2007, through which the learned Civil Judge, in exercise of powers under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C. Closed petitioner's right to submit written statement.
2. The learned counsel, while admitting that eight opportunities to file written statement were provided to the petitioner, states that the learned trial Court should have decided the suit on merits and the petitioner was non-suited on mere technicalities. He has relied upon Nusrat Ali v. Judge, Family Court and others 2006 M LD 420.
3. I have beard the learned counsel, examined the available record and perused the order-sheet of the learned trial Court with the assistance of the learned counsel. The case was firstly adjourned from 28-9-2006 to 14-11-2006 for filing written statement, however, on the said date, written statement was not filed and /he case was adjourned for the same proceedings to 18-12-2006, on which date, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. On 26-2-2007, the case was transferred to another Court and the transferee Court, in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties, postponed the suit to 16-3-2007 for submitting the written statement, however, written statement was not filed and the petitioner requested for adjournment of the case. On 2-4-2007, yet another request was made on behalf of the petitioner and the learned trial Court adjourned the case to 10- 4-2007 for filing written statement as a last opportunity. On 10-4-2007, the petitioner did not file the written statement and the case was adjourned to a future date for same proceedings subject to costs of Rs,200 and with a note of warning that if the written statement will not be filed by that date the defence would closed. On 28-4-2007, the written statement was not filed and the case was posted to 18-5-2007 at the request of the petitioner for filing written statement. Even on that date, the petitioner A could not file the written statement which resulted in passing the impugned order.
4. It is evident from above narrative of the order-sheet that the petitioner was granted eight clear opportunities to file written statement, however, he could not avail any of the said opportunities. On each and every dates of hearing, except 18-12-2006, (on which date the learned Presiding Officer was on leave), the suit was adjourned at the specific request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for filing written statement. The petitioner was provided eight opportunities within a span of 7 months 20 days, but the needful was not done. It appears from the conduct of the petitioner that he was adamant, disobeyed the various orders of the Court and reluctant to file written statement, despite the fact that the learned trial Court called upon the petitioner to file written statement. To my mind the learned trial Court has shown extraordinary indulgence and leniency to the petitioner by providing eight opportunities and a period of more than seven months for filing written statement. As noted above, although on 10-4-2007, the case was adjourned subject to payment of costs of Rs,200 and with a note of warning that on the next date of hearing, the right of the petitioner to file written statement would be closed, yet even the said order could not deter the petitioner and he remained negligent and avoided to file written statement. I feel that under the circumstances, the learned trial Court had no alternative except to proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C. As the petitioner is in possession of the suit property, therefore, he purposely did not file written statement in order to perpetuate his possession qua the suit-land made every effort to drag and prolong the litigation. The learned trial Court proceeded in right direction in passing the impugned order, to which no exception could be taken. The learned Additional District Judge with application of mind has endorsed the findings of the learned Civil Judge and has rightly held that as the petitioner did not file written statement, even after providing eight opportunities, the order passed by the learned trial Court is justified. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise the constitutional jurisdiction in the matter, which is not only discretionary but equitable also.
5. In view of the above, the present constitutional petition is devoid of merits, hence stands dismissed in limine.