' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.---This appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 6-6-2001, passed by the Additional District Judge, Okara, whereby a suit filed by Rana Muhammad Sarwar under Order 37, C.P.C. For recovery of Rs,3,00,000 against Haji Muhammad Siddique, appellant herein, was decreed on the basis of a pronote dated 4-8-1998, on the ground that the defendant- appellant has failed to furnish security and to file written statement, as required, by proceeding under Order VIII, rule 10. C.P.C.
2. Relevant facts for disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that Rana Muhammad Sarwar, respondent herein, filed a suit under Order 37, C.P.C. For recovery of Rs,3,00,000 on the basis of a pronote dated 4-8-1998 against the appellant before Additional District Judge, Okara on 12-1-2001.
The appellant-defendant put in appearance on 19-4-2001 and filed an application seeking leave to appear and defend the suit. For filing written reply by the plaintiff to the application the case was adjourned to 15-5-2001. On that date, on the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff that he had no objection on acceptance of the application subject to furnishing security by the defendant equal to the suit amount, the application was accepted and the appellant- defendant was allowed to appear and defend the suit subject to appellant's furnishing security equal to the amount of the claim until the next date of hearing and the case was adjourned to 30- 5-2001 for submission of written statement. On 30-5-2001 neither the security was furnished nor written statement was filed by the appellant. Instead, an application was moved by the appellant stating that he could not arrange for the surety bond therefore time be extended. On the request of the learned counsel for the appellant the case was adjourned to 4-5-2001 for submission of the bond and for filing the written statement, but on 4-6-2001 the appellant neither submitted the surety bond nor written statement was filed therefore the case was adjourned for further proceedings to 6-6-2001, but on that date also neither the surety bond was submitted nor written statement was filed. Consequently the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to decree the suit of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 6-6-2001.
3. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended that it was obligatory for the trial Court to frame issue, record the evidence and then to decide the case under Order 37, C.P.C.
Further contends that the pronote and receipt dated 4-8-1998 have not been proved in accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
4. On the other hand, the' learned counsel for the respondent argues that the order of the learned Additional District Judge granting leave to appear and defend dated 15-5-2001 was conditional as the application was accepted and leave was grartted to the appellant subject to his furnishing security equal to the suit amount which condition has not been fulfilled despite the fact that the appellant sought time for doing the needful.
5. We have noted that on the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent the application for seeking leave to appear and defend of the appellant was granted subject to his furnishing security bond equal to the suit amount till the next date of hearing i.e. 30-5-2001, but on the said date neither the security was furnished nor written statement was filed by the appellant. The condition attached to the order dated 15-5-2001 accepting the application subject to furnishing security bond by the appellant equal to the suit amount was violated. Even then the appellant was given two dates, i.e. 30-5-2001 and 4-6-2001 for compliance of the conditional order of furnishing the security equal to the suit amount. The case was adjourned to 6-6-2001 on the request of the appellant, but on the said date also neither the security bond was submitted nor written statement was filed. Since the order was conditional, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly proceeded to decree the suit of the respondent.
6. Three dates were granted to the appellant i.e. 30-5-2001, 4-6-2001 and 6-6-2001 for compliance of the order dated 15-5-2001 to file the security bond and the written statement. The Court is empowered under section 148, C.P.C. To grant time for compliance of its order and to extend time for doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Court, but it cannot extend the period under the said section within his discretion as the appellant has deliberately and contumaciously not complied with the Court-order. In case reported as Siddiq Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another, (PLD 1984 SC 289) it has been ruled that the extension should not be refused unless the appellant has deliberately or contumaciously not complied with the Court-order.
7. We have noted that the written statement has not been filed by the appellant despite that numerous directions were given by the Court for filing the written statement. Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C.
Empowers the Court to pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit where the party fails to file written statement within the time fixed the Court. Rule 10 of Order VIII, C.P.C. Is penal in nature, and it is within the discretion of the Court to announce judgment even without recording evidence. In case of Sh. Abdus Saboor and Brothers v.
Ganesh Flour Mills Ltd. (PLD 1967 Lahore 779) it was observed:-- "Under rule 10, the Court has been given the discretion to `pronounce judgment against' the defendant. It does not mean at all that the Court is to take any further steps to ascertain the truth of the contentions raised in the plaint. In the phrase `pronounce judgment against him' the words `pronounce' and 'against him' are significant. Once , the Court decides to exercise the discretion under rule 10, it has to pronounce the judgment against the defendant."
' Further it was observed:-- "It is necessary for the Court to record any evidence before it may pronounce judgment under rule 10 of Order VIII."
8. The above-referred case of Sh. Abdus Saboor has been approved by the Honourable Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of rule 10 of Order VIII, C.P.C. In case of Mst. Hakumat Bibi v.
Imam Din and others (PLD 1987 SC 22).
9. On the touchstone of Order 37, section 148 and Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C., we hold that the learned Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and decree without recording the evidence, and no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Okara.
' Resultantly, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.