MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Through this appeal, appellants/defendants have questioned the correctness or propriety of the impugned order dated 25-06-2015 of the learned Civil Judge First Class Chilas Diamer that the said court passed in Civil Suit No,118/14.
2. Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs,34,69,927/-. Per averments of the plaint, respondents prayed for recovery of the suit amount as compensation amounts of lands that came in construction of a link road, regarding which appellants have prepared award No,DK-77/ 2008 dated 10-01-2010. Soon-after filing of the suit, learned trial court registered the same as Civil Suit No,118/14 and started trial of the same. Learned trial court had to pass impugned order in the circumstances described therein.
3. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for respondents and have gone through the file. Learned trial court afforded opportunity to the appellants for filing written statement and the impugned order entailed as appellants failed to file written statement within the time afforded by the trial court. So the only question for determination is whether trial court afforded ample opportunity to the appellants before passing the impugned order. In this connection, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the office of District Attorney, who are representing the appellants in the District Courts had to flout the written statement before the law department concerned or before the Deputy Commissioner of District, who are doing the necessary vetting and then only the District Attorney can file the written statement. So the delay in filing the written statement was only because of delay in furnishing the result of such vetting by the office of Deputy Commissioner or the law department concerned. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that courts are working in accordance with the different provisions of C.P.C. and never in accordance with the arrangements of the appellants.
4. We have very thoughtfully considered the arguments of the parties and in our opinion, the question debated before us is very important as we are in judicial notice of the fact that appellants are time and again filing appeals, in different cases challenging the proceedings of the District Courts in the circumstances similar to that of the case in hand. In this connection, we had to go through the provisions of C.P.C. governing filing of written statement of appellants. It is not disputed that the learned trial court has passed impugned order under Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. which goes as under:-- Order VIII Rule 10: Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by the court. - - - Where any party from whom a written statement is so required fails to present the same within the time fixed by the Court, the Court may pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit."
From plain perusal of order sheets, it is evident that appellants appeared before the trial court on 07-04-2015 and the learned trial court gave different adjournments for filing written statement by the appellants till 26-06-2015. This shows that appellants obtained more than two months period which in our opinion is ample time to file written statement.
5. The painful aspect of the case is that appellants are obtaining adjournments for filing written statement on the pretext that they have deposited the same before the Deputy Commissioner concerned or the law department and are waiting for their vetting. So, the process of vetting, that the District Attorneys are waiting for, is a self styled proceeding, adopted by the appellants for filing written statement. This argument is not only wrong but goes counter to the mandatory provisions of C.P.C. governing filing of written statement by the appellants, therefore, cannot be entertained.
We direct for issuing copy of this order to all DC's concerned and the law department with the message that this kind of their attitude is against the mandatory provisions of C.P.C. Learned trial court has very rightly taken the impugned proceedings. Yet we are affording another single chance to the appellants for filing written statement and that also subject to prior deposit of Rs,10,000/- as costs before the learned trial court. Parties to appear before the learned trial court till 09-08-2016 and appellants are bound to deposit the amounts of costs in the trial court on or before 09-08-2016, who should then afford a single chance to the appellants for submission of written statement. We further direct the trial Court for assuming trial of the case in the light of impugned order, in case appellants failed to deposit the costs till the above target date, i,e,, 09-08- 2016. Impugned order varied accordingly and appeal allowed in the above terms. This file be consigned to record.