' This revision arises from the order of the learned District Judge Multan, whereby he on 31st January, 1983 confirmed the order dated 18th April, 1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lodhran, whereby the defence of Muhammad Hafeez, petitioner/defendant was struck of under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision in brief, are that Abdul Uttar, respondent No, 1 filed a suit against Muhammad Hafeez, petitioner, Bodla Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Dunyapur, respondent No, 2 and Faiz Ahmad, respondent No, 3, for the recovery of Rs, 14,801.19 and the case was fixed for filing of the written statement on 22nd December, 1981 on which date the Presiding Officer having been transferred was not present. The case was ultimately adjourned to 18th April, 1982 for filing of written statement. On the failure of the petitioner and others to file written statement the learned Civil Judge passed the following order : {{URDU TEXT}}
3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner moved appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 18th April, 1982 with the observations and directions that : "The result is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. The record be sent down to the learned lower Court with the direction that when the defence had been struck off, then there being no rebuttal or rather no defence, the decree as prayed for should have automatically followed and one be passed and there is no sense in the order of the Civil Judge in fixing the date for recording ex parte evidence. This sort of orders without any regard to the legal position should be avoided. The plaintiff is directed to appear in the learned Lower Court on 22nd January, 1983 and the Court is directed to pass a decree as prayed for."
' The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised serious objection as to clear direction of the learned District Judge to the trial Court to pass a decree against the petitioner and others. The learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 has, however, tried to defend the impugned judgment.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the record available before me. I am of the opinion that the learned District Judge should not have given direction to the trial Court to pass a decree and should have remanded the case for proceedings according to law. The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside and the case is sent back to the learned District Judge for re-writing the judgment after hearing the parties.
' The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 5th March, 1983.