This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 20-3-2002 whereby the learned trial Court closed the right of defence of the petitioner under Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. On the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit written statement despite having been granted two opportunities to do so by the Court.
2. The brief facts are that the respondent filed a suit for the recovery of US $532,809 and Pak Rs.10,246,820 against the present petitioner on 26-2-2001. Short of unnecessary detail on the record, it is noticed that the learned trial Court fixed 20-2-2002 for submission of the written statement. On this date, the written statement was not filed and the case was adjourned to 20-3- 2002 for the same purpose subject to payment of Rs.200 as cost. On this date, the petitioner filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. Praying therein that the written statement which has been finalized was incomplete for want of signatures of the defendant and for this reason, sought a short adjournment.
3. The learned trial Court did not agree with the contention made by the petitioner. Relying upon the second proviso to Order VIII, Rule 4, C.P.C., the aforesaid application was rejected and it was held that as the defendant cannot be granted more than two opportunities to submit his written statement, the defence of the petitioner was closed and the case was posted for the evidence of the petitioner/defendant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the intention of law as contained in Order VIII is to ensure the expeditious filing of the written statement and is not intended to penalize the defendant, if he is not able to submit the written statement during the course of two adjournments on account of sufficient cause.
5. On the -other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the first opportunity for submitting written statement was given on 22-1-2002 when the case was fixed for the said purpose on 20-2-2002. The second opportunity was given on 20-2-2002 when the case was adjourned to 20-3-2002. According to the learned counsel, the second proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. Precluded the grant of more than two adjournments for filing of the written statement. It was contended that the learned trial Court had rightly refused the request for a third adjournment and has thus, proceeded strictly in accordance with law.
6. In order to appreciate the contentions of both the parties, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Order VIII as progressively amended. According to the proviso introduced by Ordinance XII of 1972, the period to be ordinarily allowed for the filing of the written statement was not to exceed 90 days.
This was further reduced to a period of 30 days through Civil Laws (Reforms) Ordinance (XXXIII of 1993).
7. The second proviso was inserted through Notification No.300-Rules/XI-Y-26, dated 2-10-2001 whereby the following was added:--- "Provided further that not more than two adjournments shall be granted for presenting the written statement."
8. Order VIII, C.P.C. As it presently stands reads as under:--
(1) Written statement.--- The defendant shall at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence and with such written statement, or if there is no written statement, at the first hearing shall produce in Court all documents in his possession power on which he bases his defence or any claim for set-of.
(2) Where he relies on any other documents as evidence in support of his defence or claim for set- of he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the written statement, or where there is no such written statement, to be presented at the first hearing, if no such list is annexed or presented, the defendant shall be allowed a further period of ten days to file the list of documents.
(3) A document that ought to be entered into the list referred to in sub---clause (2) but which has not been so entered, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on the defendant's behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents produced for cross---examination of the plaintiff's witnesses or handed to a witness to refresh his memory: Provided that the period allowed for filing the written statement shall not ordinarily exceed 30 days: Provided further that not more than two adjournments, shall be granted for presenting the written statement."
9. For the purpose of resolving the instant controversy, the real intent of Legislature as contained in the 1st proviso shall be examined in juxtaposition, requirement which is laid down in the 2nd proviso.
While so construing, the definite purposive intent of the Legislature i.e. To curtail in ordinate delay and to expedite the trial even at the initial stage of the filing of the written statement has to be kept in mind.
10. According to the 1st proviso, the period allowed for filing the written statement shall not "ordinarily" exceed 30 days. (The underlining is ours). According to the cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes, no word in the Statute is redundant and has to be given, the specific meaning which it intends to convey. The Legislature has specifically incorporated the word "ordinarily" to convey that this period of 30 days cannot be adhered to in all circumstances. The use of the term "ordinarily" (gives a discretion to the Court to extend this period in suitable cases. This being so the 1st proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. Can only be construed to be directory and not mandatory.
11. To elaborate this further, reference may be made to the period of limitation which is provided either by the Limitation Act or by a Special Statute wherein the period within which a particular act has to be done in unconditionally specified. In that case, the period fixed by law shall be mandatory in nature as it does not admit of any discretion vesting in any Court. (Subject of course to the power of condonation of delay). Where the doing of an act is bound by time but is qualified by the term "ordinarily", it shall necessarily imply that such provision of law is intended to be directory only.
12. It shall be in this context that the proviso to Order VIII(1), C.P.C. Stipulating that not more than two adjournments shall be granted shall have to be construed.
13. It has already been found that the 1st proviso is not mandatory in. Character as long as it is employed to foster and to promote the basic objects, for which, it was promulgated viz. Expeditious disposal of civil cases.
14. The prohibitory command conveyed by the second proviso is primarily directed to further the cause of the 1st proviso. If the second proviso is treated as mandatory, as it has been construed by the learned trial Court, the letter and intent of the 1st proviso shall be defeated rather than promoted. The second proviso should not be interpreted, so as to have greater effect than the interpretation and construction of the 1st proviso itself.
15. It is also a cardinal principle of interpretation of Statutes that the different provisions of the Statutes should be construed harmoniously, so as to advance the purpose of a substantive provision of law. No provision shall be pressed into service in order to defeat the real object of the main provision.
16. All procedural Laws are designed to promote, the ends of justice. The Courts of Law never make a fetish of technicalities, so as to lose sight of the main purpose of administration of justice which is to decide a lis in accordance with the respective rights of the parties.
17. In the instant case, as stated hereinbefore, the respondent has filed a suit for the recovery of a huge amount of US $ 532,809 and Pak. Rs.10,246,820. The claim was based upon the averments as contained in detail in the memorandum of the plaint. If, a narrow and rigid construction is placed upon the second proviso, it would amount to granting a decree of a huge amount even without allowing the defendant to contest the claim on merits, when the record does not disclose any contumacious act which is attributed to the defendant.
18. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the case of Messrs Allied Group Ventures Limited v. Quality Vision (Pvt.) Limited and others PLD 2002 Lah. 274 to contend that a learned Single Judge of this Court has interpreted the second proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. As mandatory. A perusal of the said judgment does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent as the question whether the second proviso was mandatory or directory was not mooted or decided in that case.
19. As a result, this civil revision is allowed and the impugned order, dated 20-3-2002 inset aside.
The petitioner shall be allowed one opportunity to submit his written statement subject to costs of Rs.5,000. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 16-1-2003. After the submission of the written statement, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on merits. The parties to bear their own costs.