Allowed

State of Haryana and Anr. v. Sudhir Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Dec 2010CR/1326/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an oral order where the High Court quashed an order striking out the petitioners' defence due to non-filing of a written statement. The court held that the provision is directory and permitted the defendants to file a written statement within 15 days while also imposing costs on them.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order striking out defence is quashed. The petitioners shall file the written statement within 15 days and pay costs of Rs. 5000.

State of Haryana and Anr. Vs Sudhir… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.R. No. 1326 of 2010

¶3

Date of Decision: 08.12.2010

¶4

State of Haryana and another

.... Petitioners

Versus

Sudhir Kumar

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

¶10

Present : Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG Haryana for the petitioners

¶11

None for the respondent

¶12

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.5.2008 passed by Addl. District Judge, Jagadhri thereby striking of the defence of the defendants-petitioners for non-filing of written statement within time.

¶17

As per office report, respondent has been served but none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that written statement is ready and shall be filed within such time as fixed by this Court. He further states that earlier written statement could not be filed because Department was reorganised and papers to prepare written statement were not readily available.

¶19

Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kailash vs. Nanhku and others, reported in 2005(4) Supreme Court Cases, 480 has held that provision of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory but are

¶20

C.R. No. 1326 of 2010

¶21

¶22

directory in nature and on sufficient cause being shown, defendants can be permitted to file written statement beyond statutory period.

¶23

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the golden rule that none should be given walk over and lis between the parties should be decided, as far as possible, on the merits after giving sufficient opportunities to both the parties to place on record pleadings, material and evidence, I direct that petitioners/defendants shall file written statement within 15 days from today in the Court below.

¶24

Order impugned stands quashed.

¶25

Defendants-petitioners shall pay cost of ` 5000/- to the plaintiff-respondent. It is, however, made clear that no further time shall be granted for filing written statement or for payment of cost. On filing written statement and payment of cost, learned trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.

¶26

Petition stands disposed of.

¶27

(ALOK SINGH) JUDGE

¶28

08.12.2010 reena

State of Haryana and Anr. v. Sudhir Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana and Anr. v. Sudhir Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Singh and Anr. Vs Nirmal Kaur

Balwinder Singh Vs Kuldip Ram & Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Vs Jagbir Singh and Others

Chaman Lal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Avtar Singh Gill Vs Dharamveer Singh Gill and Ors.

State of Haryana and Anr. Vs Sushil Kumar and Anr.