' This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge; Toba Tek Singh, by which he had dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner, Jamal. In the appeal, the petitioner had challenged the judgment and dercree of a Civil Judge of Toba Tek Singh by which, he had decreed the suit of the respondent, Rai Naeem Ullah Khan, due to the petitioner's failure to file written statement despite having been allowed six adjournments to do so.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge were not supported by any evidence and, therefore, the same were not sustainable.
3. The learned Civil Judge had pronounced judgment against the petitioner in terms of provisions of Order VIII, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which read as follows :- "10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by 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.
4. It is apparent from the language of rule 10 that if written statement is not filed when so required by the trial Court there are two courses open to the said Court. It can either straightaway pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such order as it thinks fit. In the instant case, however, the learned Civil Judge adopted the first course, and decided the suit against the petitioner forthwith. He could have ordered ex parte proceedings against the petitioner and called upon the respondent to produce evidence in support of his case but he did not like to do so. If the view taken is that the learned Civil Judge could not pronounce judgment in the absence of any evidence against the petitioner it would defeat the very purpose for which the trial Court was enabled to pronounce judgment on the failure of the defendant to file written statement. If intention of the Legislature had been not to allow the trial Court to decide the suit in the absence of any evidence. It would have simply empowered the said Court to strike out the defence of the defendant. Such a provision has been made in rule 12 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with the failure of the defendant to give his own address. I am, therefore, clear in my mind that the learned Civil Judge could decide the suit as done by him without requiring the respondent to produce evidence in support of his case.
5. It was conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was allowed six adjournments for filing the written statement but despite that written statement was not put in by him. No explanation was offered by him for the petitioner's failure to comply with repeated directions of the learned trial Court regarding the submission of written statement. Having noted that the petitioner had not filed written statement in obedience to its order it w, s discretionary with the learned trial Court to pronounce judgment against him or pass such order as it thought fit. On five occasions the Court took a lenient view and, by exercising its discretion in favour of the petitioner, overlooked hi default in the matter of filing the written statement and instead of pronouncing judgment against him passed orders allowing him further time to do the needful. It was, however, on the sixth occasion that the Court felt constrained to exercise its discretion to the contrary and pronounced judgment against the petitioner because written statement was not filed on that occasion as well, and there was no explanation for this shortcoming. It cannot. Therefore, be said that on the sixth occasion discretion was not judicially exercised by the learned Civil Judge.
Too much latitude had already been shown to the petitioner and he did not deserve any more indulgence especially due to his gross negligence and contumacy.
7. In this view of the matter, order of the learned trial Court is unexceptional. The instant revision, therefore, fails. It is dismissed in limine.