Revision petition allowed granting petitioner one opportunity to file written statement on fixed date subject to payment of costs to respondent, dismissing proceedings if conditions not met.
Petitioner permitted to file written statement on 8.9.2009 or next hearing date, subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
C.R. No. 3784 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3784 of 2009
Date of Decision: 21.7.2009
Vijay Kumar --- Petitioner
Versus
Chhaju Ram and another --- Respondents ===
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
PRESENT: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is for setting aside the order dated 13.5.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohindergarh whereby the defence of the defendantpetitioner was struck off on the ground that he did not file the written statement within ninety days.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the written statement was ready on 13.5.2009 i.e. the date on which the defence of the petitioner was struck off, but the same could not be furnished to the court due to inadvertent
2
C.R. No. 3784 of 2009
mistake on the part of the petitioner. The counsel submitted that if the permission is granted by this Court, the written statement shall be furnished in the trial court on the date already fixed in the suit, i.e. on 8.9.2009, and a copy thereof has also been placed on the record of this petition, as Annexure P-2. The counsel thus, made an emphatic prayer that in the interest of justice the petitioner may be granted only one opportunity to enable him to file the written statement on the date aforesaid.
Ordinarily, I would have issued notice of motion to the respondents but as the issuance of the notice would prolong the case and entail unnecessary expenses to them, the petition is being disposed of without resorting to that course.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that in the interest of justice, the petitioner deserves to be granted one opportunity to file his written statement. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to furnish/place on record his written statement to the suit on 8.9.2009, the date already fixed in the suit. If, however, for some reason the suit is not taken up on 8.9.2009, the written statement shall be permitted to be placed on record on the next date when the suit is taken up for hearing. The filing of the written statement is subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs payable to the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to either furnish the
3
C.R. No. 3784 of 2009
written statement or pay the costs as ordered herein, the present revision petition shall be deemed to have been automatically
dismissed without further reference to the Court.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) July 21, 2009 JUDGE RKMALIK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, whose defence was struck off for delay in filing written statement, deserves an opportunity to file it due to inadvertent mistake.
Whether permission should be granted to file the written statement on the date fixed in the suit subject to payment of costs.
Vijay Kumar
Chhaju Ram
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
