Dismissed

Kartar Singh and Others v. Champa Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Aug 2023CMPMO/414/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order by the learned trial court striking off the defence of the petitioners for failing to file a written statement within the statutory period, despite repeated adjournment opportunities. The High Court rejected the claim that proceedings were solely for amendment and found no illegality in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed without any further order.

Kartar Singh and Others Vs Champa… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No. 414 of 2023 Date of decision : 9.8.2023. Kartar Singh & others ...Petitioners. Versus Champa Devi ...Respondent

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge .

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioners : Mr. Gurdev Negi, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo.

¶6

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

¶7

By way of instant petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 29.12.2022, whereby the learned trial Court has struck off the defence of the petitioners (defendants before learned trial Court).

¶8

The impugned order reads as under:-

¶9

“Written statement has not been filed by the defendants. Furthermore, time has not been sought for filing written statements. Since statutory period to file written statement has

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

-2-

¶12

already been expired, therefore, right to file written statement of defendants stands struck off.”

¶13

The petitioners have placed on record daily order sheets, evidencing the order passed by learned trial Court from 4.10.2021. It is revealed that after 30.11.2021, the petitioners/defendants had been seeking adjournments for filing of written statement that too without assigning any plausible reason. The learned trial Court allowed more than sufficient opportunities to petitioners to file the written statement, still the petitioners/defendants failed to comply with the orders.

¶14

Nothing has been stated by the petitioners as to why they could not file the written statement for such a long period. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on 4.10.2021, plaintiff had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint and the petitioners/defendants remained under impression that the proceedings thereafter had continued in respect of amendment application only.

¶15

-3-

¶16

However, the contention so raised deserves to be rejected for the reason that the record does not warrant any such inference. The case was repeatedly adjourned on the asking of petitioners/defendants for filing written statement and there was no occasion for the petitioners to have entertained any wrong notion.

¶17

In view of above, no illegality much less perversity is found in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. The petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶19

9^th August, 2023 (kck)

Kartar Singh and Others v. Champa Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartar Singh and Others v. Champa Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karam Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Vikas Chaudhary Vs Rajiv Aggarwal

Pyare Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Neelam Verma Vs Sant Ram Verma and Ors.

Shiv Ram and Others Vs Karam Chand and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp