-Certified copies of documents available on file that on same, day when impugned order was passed, petitioner had submitted an application that he wanted to file surety bonds but it appears that same was not considered in his favour--

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 205

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----O.XXXVII--Certified copies of documents available on file that on same, day when impugned order was passed, petitioner had submitted an application that he wanted to file surety bonds but it appears that same was not considered in his favour--Fact remains that law appreciates decision on merits instead of technical knockout--When leave to appear and defend suit was allowed, trial Court was not supposed to pass harsh order while forfeiting right of petitioner to file written statement due to non-submission of surety bonds and for that Court had ample powers to extend said period.                                                                         

                                                                                             [P. 206] A

Mr. Abid Hussain Shah, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 27.9.2021.

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 205
[Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Sohail Nasir, J.
ZAFAR IQBAL--Petitioner
versus
MUDASSIR SHAFI--Respondent
C.R. No. 223 of 2021, decided on 27.9.2021.

Order

In a suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. filed by Mudassir Shafi/respondent, leave to appear and defend the suit filed by Zafar Iqbal (petitioner) was allowed subject to deposit of surety bonds. It was on 03.02.2021, the case was fixed for submission of written statement by petitioner, when that right was forfeited on the ground that petitioner had not submitted the surety bonds vide an order dated 03.02.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kabirwala District Khanewal which has been impugned through this Civil Revision.

2. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent despite service hence proceeded ex-parte.

3. HEARD.

4. It is evident from certified copies of documents available on file that on the same, day when impugned order was passed, petitioner had submitted an application that he wanted to file the surety bonds but it appears that same was not considered in his favour. The fact remains that law appreciates decision on merits instead of technical knockout. Particularly in the case in hand when leave to appear and defend the suit was allowed, the learned trial Court was not supposed to pass harsh order while forfeiting the right of petitioner to file written statement due to non-submission of surety bonds and for that Court had ample powers to extend the said period.

5. Resultantly this Civil Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kabirwala is set-aside. The learned trial Court is directed to provide one but final opportunity to petitioner to submit written statement as well as surety bonds.

(Y.A.)  Revision petition allowed