Allowed

Parkash Singh v. Rajni Rani & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Oct 2009CR/6037/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal petition set aside an order striking out the petitioner's defence for alleged inattention. It permitted the petitioner to file a reply in an Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC proceeding contingent upon payment of Rs.10,000/- costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; permission granted to file reply in Order 39 Rule 2-A proceedings subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- costs.

Parkash Singh Vs Rajni Rani & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.R.No.6037 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.R.No.6037 of 2009. Decided on: October 21, 2009.

Parkash Singh

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

Rajni Rani and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

¶11

PRESENT Mr.Inder Jeet Singh Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Vide impugned order dated 03.08.2009, the defence of the petitioner in proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, has been struck of and he has not been given an opportunity to file reply. A perusal of the order indicates that despite the imposition of cost and grant of last opportunities, the petitioner had failed to file reply in application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC, filed by the respondent-plaintiff Rajni Rani.

¶14

I have heard counsel for the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner in taking the stay order passed by the trial Court casually is apparent from the record. His casual approach in contesting the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, also deserves to be deprecated, but at the same time, in the interest of justice, he deserves at least one opportunity to file reply to the

¶15

. . . 1

¶16

C.R.No.6037 of 2009

¶17

application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, which entails penal consequences in case the same is allowed. The petitioner can, at this stage, be permitted to file a reply and contest the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, subject to the payment of reasonable costs to the plaintiffs-respondents. It appears that it will be a debatable point whether the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, made for presentation of written statement are applicable in miscellaneous applications also.

¶18

Without entering into the said controversy, in the interest of justice, this revision petition is disposed of in limine and the order dated 03.08.2009, is set aside with a specific direction that petitioner will be permitted to file a reply in a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, initiated against him by plaintiff-respondent No.1 subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on 05.11.2009, stated to be next date of hearing before the trial Court and file a reply on payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondent Rajni Rani. It is made clear that in case the costs is not paid or reply is not filed this revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed.

¶19

A copy of order be sent to the trial Court through FAX by the Registry.

¶20

A copy of order be also given dasti on payment of

usual charges.

(M.M.S.BEDI)

JUDGE

October 21, 2009. rka

¶25

. . . 2

Parkash Singh v. Rajni Rani & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parkash Singh v. Rajni Rani & Ors.

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

Suman Lata Vs Sunita Devi & Ors.

Major Singh Vs Surjit Singh and Ors.

Garg Rice Industries, Matlauda Vs Haryana Warehousing Corp. and Anr.

Inder Giyan Vs Shyam Sunder and Anr.

Gurnam Singh Vs Bahadur Singh and Ors.

Kuljit Singh Vs Sarbjit Kaur