GHULAM HUSSAIN versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN
A. VIII, R1 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Petition Written Statement The right to file a written statement and the defendant's written statement as generally written in OII, R1, CPC were struck down by the trial court. And the same was upheld by the amending court. The Plaintiffs raised by the Defendants were that under O VIII, R 1, a 30-day CPC period was not mandatory as the term was generally used which did not attract a penal clause. Used to go Generally, the use of this word reduces the impact of the mandatory approach. Eighth, R1, CPC, nevertheless, the use of the word generally only will not diminish the effect of the term provided under the said provisions, meaning that the legislature for 30 days was aware of this fact. WordN used a specific period of time to enter the written statement. When viewed in the light of the days set forth in this section, it would mean that in the case of certain difficulties or events, if the explanation was extended by the party then the court had given this time, the extension of time. In the present case, the time was extended, but even then the defendants failed to comply with the order. However, the court may allow some space for persons who, out of their control, have disclosed the circumstances and thus failed to comply with the orders from which the impending order was granted. And the High Court refused to intervene under that term. Constitutional Jurisdiction The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
