JAMAL vs Rai NADEEM ULLAH KHAN
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a money decree passed against him in a suit where he failed to file a written statement. The trial court had decreed the suit based on the petitioner's failure to comply with an order to file a written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner contended that the trial court had not specifically directed the filing of a written statement, but rather that it was treated as a routine proceeding, citing precedent to support the argument that a decree under Order VIII, Rule 1, requires a specific judicial direction. The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, noting that the appellate order suggested the filing was not pursuant to a specific or special direction by the trial court. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the decree was legally sustainable in the absence of a specific court direction, and stayed the execution proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.
- Can a court pass a decree against a defendant for failure to file a written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, without a specific direction from the court to file such a statement?
- Does the failure to file a written statement in routine proceedings justify a decree under Order VIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Order VIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant in a money suit which has been decreed against him throughout and finally his Civil Revision was also dismissed by the High Court.
2. The suit has been decreed against the petitioner on account of his failure to file written statement, under Order VIII, Rule 1, C.P.C.; on the assumption, that the Court felt' the need for the filing of the written statement and the petitioner despite having been allowed several opportunities failed to comply with the directions in this behalf. Learned counsel has relied on Sardar Sakhawatuddin and 3 others v. Muhammad Iqbal and 4 others (1987 SCMR 1365) to contend that this was not a case in which it was the need and the direction of the Court that the petitioner was required to file a written statement. On the contrary he has read the relevant part of the appellate order which according to him sufficiently shows that the filing of the written statement was a routine proceedings without any specific or special direction by the trial Court under Order VIII, Rule 1. Prima facie, the argument of the learned counsel has force. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted.
3. Security Rs.5,000.
4. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all essential documents.
5. Execution proceedings, in the peculiar circumstances and the grant of leave to appeal, are stayed.