IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J.- The relevant facts for the decision of this civil revision are that the respondent purchased land. The petitioner filed a suit on 7.2.1983 to pre-empt the sale. The suit was resisted amongst others on the ground that the plaint is not signed by the plaintiff and is bogus, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The trial Court proceeded to seal the plaint, power of attomey and direct the parties to appear in person for recording their better statements in the light of their pleadings. The respondent appeared in person while the petitioner was represented by her counsel and special attomey. The petitioner submitted medical certificate dated 10.5.19S3, according to which, she was suffering from hypertension, therefore, could not appear. The leamed trial Court noted that the petitioner has intentionally not appeared because she has gone to doctor for treatment, appeared before the Oath Commissioner for attestation of the affidavit appended with the suit, therefore, in view of the provisions of Order X Rule 4(2) CPC proceeded to hold that the petitioner has failed to appear without any lawful excuse and dismissed her suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.5.1983. The petitioner assailed this judgment and decree through an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4.3.1984, which has been challenged through the present revision petition. The same was admitted to healing, notice was issued to the respondent. Neither the respondent nor his counsel is present, therefore, he is proceeded ex party.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner being a woman could not be legally compelled to appear in the Court and the suit could not be dismissed because she was represented not only by counsel but her son and special attomey were also present, therefore, their better statements could have been recorded. The learned counsel in this behalf has relied on Parmarth Gir v. Krishna Daval Gir and others (AIR 1933 Allahabad 517), Sm. Sundar Devi v. Dattarva Nhrhar Rege and another (AIR 1933 Allahabad 551) and Mst. Ghulain Fatimah and another v. Mst.
Sablan and 7 others (1991 SCM R 2530).
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the leamed counsel for the petitioner, gone through the record, relevant provisions of law and precedent cases. I would first refer to the precedents as under:-
(i) In the case of Parmarth Oir (Supra) it was held by the High Court that the leamed counsel, who was present, did not refuse or express inability to answer the question by the Court Moreover, it was held that the trial Court has assumed that it has power to direct personal attendance of the parties without assigning any reason. This was repelled; [Vol, XVII {Mst.) Sardar Begum V. Darwesh Muhammad C.C. 3 (Ihsqn-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J)
(ii) In the ease of Sm, Sundar Devi (Supra) order insisting on personal attendance in Court of Pardansheen lady was set-aside; and
(in) In the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatimah and another (Supra) one of the plaintiffs was admittedly a minor while the age of the other plaintiff was not dear.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to the case of Chnlam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naavi (PLD 1990 SC 1) held as under: "It is obvious from the language used in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 that even when after due inquiry the Court comes to the conclusion that there was no lawful excuse for the party in default, it is discretionary with the Court either to pronounce the judgment against that party or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. In this case admittedly the parties concerned are females and even if the question of minority of one of them at the relevant stage is not dear, the other was admittedly a minor, therefore, it was. not at all a fit case for exercise of discretion against both the female plaintiffs."
These cases are dearly distinguishable from the case in hand where the petitioner did not daim any exemption and was directed to appear in view of the fact that the defendant has taken up objection that the plaint was not signed by her, therefore, the same could have been explained by here self alone. Neither the learned counsel could depose about this fact nor her special attorney.
The presence of the petitioner was also necessary to obtain her spedmen signatures if the Court deemed necessary after recording her statement In other words, the matter could not proceed in her absence. She was under legal obligation to abide by the direction more so when neither any exemption from appearance was claimed nor there was lawful excuse for avoiding to appear. The First Appellate Court noted that although the suit was dismissed by the trial Courtior her failure to appear as directed yet the petitioner did hot appear even before it to own her signatures on the plaint and contend that the suit was filed by her. The findings of the trial Court were confirmed with these observations. There is nothing wrong with the same. The suit has been decided in line with the provisions of Rule 4(2) of Crder X CPC. The petitionerhas failed to make out a case for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this revision. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.