1. C.M.A. No,10302 of 1998.
2. ' This is an application filed by the defendant under Rule 159 of Sindh Chief Court Rules read with section 151, C.P.C., for restoration of the suit of the defendant, to file written statement and objections.
3. ' The plaintiff has filed the suit for granting of permanent injunction and from restraining the defendants from trying to use the mark POLO which is copy of mark POLO. The suit was filed on 5-11- 1996 and the defendants were served as per the diary of the Additional Registrar and filed power on the 20th January, 1997. On that day the Additional Registrar ordered that written statement is to be filed by all the defendants, thereafter the matter was put up on 7-4-1997 and 13-5-1997 but written statement was not filed. On the 2nd of September, 1997 the defendants 1 to 5 were debarred from filing the written statement by the Additional Registrar. This application under Rule 159 has been filed on 23rd November, 1998.
4. ' In this application the counsel for the defendants has filed an affidavit where no justifiable reasons have been given for the elate filing or non-filing of written statement within the stipulated time.
5. Instead of showing reasons or justification as to why there occurred a delay in filing the written statement within the time stipulated under the law the counsel has through another affidavit, filed on behalf of his client, pointed out the various defects in the plaint, the application under Order 39, Rules I and 2, C.P.C., and the affidavit filed thereto and have challenged the same on the ground that they have not been filed as provided under the law. One of the justifications in the delay is to the effect that the power of attorney relied upon by the plaintiff was not proper. The resolution of the Company empowering the plaintiff to file the suit was not proper and that it was in a foreign language. The justification for not filing the written statement in time has to be given in detail and the delay has to be explained. The defendant has in effect taken objections to the plaint and the application which could have easily been taken in the written statement and formed part and parcel of the pleadings. I have gone through in detail through all his objections which could have easily been incorporated in the written statement. The application is hopelessly barred by limitation and no justification has been shown in the delay and do no see why a party should be allowed to contest the matter where even on the merits the plaintiff has a very strong case and it is obvious that the defendant is using various methods to try and prolong the case, which should have been disposed of much earlier. The above are the reasons as by short order, dated 17-5-1999 the application was dismissed.