1. ' Tht petitioners have assailed order dated 31.05.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan, whereby right of the petitioners to file written statement was struck of and judgment dated 26.05.2007 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Multan whereby order passed by learned Civil Judge was upheld.
2. 2.Briefly the facts of the case are that Respondent No, 1, M/s. Akram & Company instituted a suit for rendition of accounts before the learned Civil Judge, Multan. On 06.05.2006 learned counsel for the petitioners appeared and submitted memo. of appearance, hereafter he was directed to submit written reply and written statement within two days i,e, till 13.05.2006 and afterwards case was adjourned to 17.05.2006, 24.05.2006, 29.05.2006 and 31.05.2006. However, the petitioners failed to file written reply and written statement and the learned Civil Judge struck of the defence and feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed revision, petition which remained pending in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Multan, who dismissed the same, hence, this writ petition.
3. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under the law, the defendants/petitioners had right to submit written statement within three months, whereas the defence was struck of within 20 days in a hasty manner without affording the opportunity to hear the petitioners; that it has failed to appreciate that huge interest of the petitioners is involved in the suit and in case an opportunity to file written statement is not granted they will suffer irreparable loss and even otherwise the requirements of law is that the matters should be disposed of on merits, however, the petitioners have been knocked out on account of technicalities; that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge and judgment passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Multan are illegal, against law and facts of the case and the same are not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. 4.Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. 5.Respondent No, 1, M/s. Muhammad Akram through his suit has claimed that the plaintiffs were awarded contract of recovery of license fee, permit fee and sanitation fee for the year 2005-06 by the defendants. However, it transpired subsequently that various officials of TMA had already been collecting fee and the matter was agitated. Defendants kept the agreement with them without providing copy of same to the plaintiffs and they time and again asked the defendants that various traders were adamant and refused to pay the said fee. However, a notice was served to him on 29.04.2006 which made the plaintiff to institute suit on 06.05.2006 in sequence to which a notice was issued to the defendants and on 09.05.2016 none appeared from the side of the petitioners and it was directed that respondents shall be restrained from cancelling the contract or using any coercive measures for the recovery of outstanding amount without disposing of the application filed by the plaintiffs with them and thereafter on 17.05.2006 learned counsel for the defendants appeared before Court and case was adjourned to 24.05.2006, 29.05.2006 and 31.05.2006. On 31.05.2006 written statement was not filed and thus right to submit written statement was closed.
6. 6.The order sheet annexed with this petition has been perused which reflects that routine orders were made by the learned Civil Judge directing for submission of written statement and even it has failed to appreciate by the learned Addl. District Judge that the case was adjourned on each date on the request of the petitioners to file written statement rather no specific order was passed and the order of trial Court has not been found in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts. It is now settled principle of law that Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC applies only to a specific requirement by the Court to the filing of written statement and not a general direction in the summons that such a written statement may be filed as per principle laid down by the superior Courts. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also taken a stance that the summons were not duly annexed with the copy of the plaint and the same was -received by the petitioners subsequently and there is no specific order in respect to the supply of copy of plaint and in the circumstances when the petitioners had not received copy of the plaint, still they had time to file written statement and written reply within specified period under the provisions of CPC but this fact was neither considered by the learned Civil Judge nor the learned Addl. District Judge. It has been held by the superior Courts that mere technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that after the addition of Article 2-A in the Constitution that the cases must be decided on merits instead of technicalities. Reliance is placed on 'Metropolitan Corporation of Lahore through Administrator and another versus Lease Pak Limited' (2001 CLC 200). The impugned order has been passed by the learned Civil Judge in a hasty manner without applying independent judicial mind and also ignoring that valuable rights of the petitioners are involved in suit and thus the impugned order dated 31.05.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge and the judgment dated 26.05.2007 passed by learned Addl. District. Judge are not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, this petition is accepted, impugned order dated 31.05.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge, Multan and judgment dated 26.05.2007 passed by learned Addl.
7. District Judge, Multan are set aside. Petitioners are afforded with one opportunity to submit written statement after appearance before the learned Civil Judge and in case despite availing of one opportunity to submit written statement the same is not filed, the learned Civil Judge would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Multan on 08.02.2017, who is directed to entrust the matter to a Court of competent jurisdiction for disposal of the same in accordance with law.