RAJA SHAKEEL AHM AD, J. The instant civil revision petition is directed against the impugned judgment/ order dated 18.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit in C.F.A. No. 80/2018 whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of petitioners/defendants and maintained the judgment/ order of Civil Judge Gilgit 1st Class No. 1 Gilgit in Civil Suit No. 108/2015.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the matter are that, initially, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a civil suit against the Petitioners/defendants and proforma respondents in the Civil Court Gilgit. During pendency of suit the present petitioners/defendants failed to file written statement despite availing several chances and seeking adjournment frequently. The learned trial court struck off the right of defendants/petitioners for filing the written statement vide its judgment dated 20.06.2018 being aggrieved the petitioners/defendants filed an appeal before the 1st Appellate Court which was also dismissed from the Court of Additional District Judge Gilgit, vide judgment/order dated 18 .10.2018 , being dissatisfied from both the impugned/ orders the petitioners/defendants filed present petition.
3. The learned Additional A.A.G. contended that both the judgments/orders of learned Courts below are not maintainable under the law, as the learned lower courts have not followed the mandatory provisions of law as well as fact. The learned AAG further contended that while passing the impugned judgments/orders the both the lower Courts failed to appreciate the law point and penalized the petitioners without following the procedure in Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Adversely, the learned counsel for respondent / plaintiff vehemently opposed the contention of learned A.A.G. and contended that the learned lower courts passed the judgments/orders as per law and procedure laid down in. Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. The judgments/orders of both the lower courts are self-explanatory, and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by both the lower Courts. The learned counsel further argued that the appellants/ defendants are Govt. authorities, who are by misusing their power want to prolong the matter just to humiliate the plaintiff/respondent. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner/ defendants are not contesting defendants in the suit, actually the respondent 2 who are contesting defendants and they have already submitted their written statement in the trial court but due to lethargic attitude of the present petitioners/ defendants the matter is lingering on before the trial Court since 2015.
The learned counsel continued his arguments by contending that the impugned judgment/orders of both the lower court does not call for any interference of this Hon'ble Court to alter, amend, vary or set aside the same, being based on detailed valuable and strong reasons. Finally, the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff prayed for dismissal of the revision in hand.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case minutely.
6. Perusal of record shows that respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit in Civil Court No.1 Gilgit in the year 2015, and during pendency of said suit the present petitioner/defendants failed to file their written statement despite the fact that on the request of present petitioners the learned trial Court provided ample C chances to enable them to file the W/S. Consequently, the learned Trial Court vide it judgment/order dated 08.05.2017 struck off the right of petitioners for filing of written statement. Petitioners/ defendants being dissatisfied from the judgment of trial court filed appeal before the 1st Appellate Court/District Court Gilgit where appeal of the present petitioners/defendants was allowed and the learned 1st Appellate Court vide -Order dated 17.10.2017 directed the parties to appear before the learned trial court on 28.10.2017 for a date to be fixed by the learned trial' court for filing of written statement on behalf of present petitioners/defendants. After the above judgment the present petitioners/ defendants again sought six adjournments for filing the written statement despite the fact that the 1st Appellate court provided only one chance to the petitioners to file their written statement in the trial court. This lethargic attitude of the present petitioners by no means was tolerable, which amounts to hindrance in early disposal of cases and advancement of cause of justice, consequently the learned trial court once again struck off the right of petitioners/defendants of filing of written statement vide its judgement dated 20/06/2018. Being aggrieved the present petitioners/ defendants again filed Appeal No.18/2018 before the 1st Appellate Court/Additional District Judge which was dismissed being devoid of merit vide judgment dated 18.10.2018.
7. It is evident from the record that the petitioners failed to file written since the 2015, despite the fact that the petitioner were being tread favorably by the trial court by providing ample chances which shouldn't be provided against the mandatory provision of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the defendant may, and if so required by the Court, shall, at or before the first date of hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defense, provided that the period allowed to filing written statement shall not ordinarily exceed thirty days. The trial Court initially accommodated the present petitioner for a period of two years for filing the written statement, and then vide its judgement dated 28/10/2017 struck off the right of petitioners of filing of written statement, the same order was set aside by the 1st appellate Court by providing the single chance to the present petitioners for filling of their written statement before the trial Court, but after remand of the case the petitioners. after availing six adjournments instead of single chance once again failed to file their written statement, hence under Order VIII, Rule 10 the trial court as well as the 1st Appellate Courts lefts with no option except to struck off the right of the petitioner for filing of written statement and pronounce the impugned judgments against the present petitioners.
8. For the reasons discussed above 'the concurrent findings recorded by learned courts below are not open to exceptions and that too in absence of any illegality or irregularity therein. No material irregularity or illegality has been pointed by learned AAG in the impugned Judgments/Orders which could justify indulgence by this court in its revisional jurisdiction.
9. As sequel to the above, instant Revision Petition No. 128/2018 along with the Civil. Misc. No. 496/2018, being without any substance is dismissed. File.