Allowed

Avtar Singh v. Preet Mohinder Pal Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Sept 2010CR/4797/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order striking off the petitioner's defence in a civil suit. The court held that delayed payment of court fee did not warrant dismissal, ordered appearance with written statement on a specified date, and imposed costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to appear on 4.10.2010, file written statement that day, and pay costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

Avtar Singh Vs Preet Mohinder Pal Singh and Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR No.4797 of 2010 Date of decision: 7.9.2010

¶3

Avtar Singh

¶4

......Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Preet Mohinder Pal Singh and others

¶7

......Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶9

¶10

Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. R.K. Rana, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

¶13

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)

¶14

The petitioner who is defendant No.1 has filed this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 29.4.2010 whereby his defence has been struck off.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as other zimni orders as reproduced in the petition.

¶16

It is not in dispute that vide order dated 21.1.2010, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner was decided whereby the plaintiff-respondents were directed to affix the ad valorem Court fee on the suit. However, ad valorem Court fee was affixed by the plaintiff-respondents only on 20.4.2010 and on that date the case was adjourned to 29.4.2010 for filing written statement. On 29.4.2010, written statement was not filed hence, the impugned order was passed.

¶17

It is well settled that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for administration of justice. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC have been held to be directory in nature. Moreover, the case is at the

¶18

CR No.4797 of 2010

¶19

-2-

¶20

initial stage and the plaintiff-respondent can be compensated by way of costs and therefore, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiffrespondents in case the present petitioner is allowed to file his written statement.

¶21

Thus, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed i.e. 4.10.2010 and file his written statement on that very day subject to payment of costs which are assessed as Rs.1,000/-.

¶22

It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to file written statement.

¶23

Disposed of.

¶24

September 7, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE

Avtar Singh v. Preet Mohinder Pal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avtar Singh v. Preet Mohinder Pal Singh and 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

Municipal Council, Mansa Thr'H Executive Officer Vs Puneet Bansal and Anr.

Municipal Council , Mansa Thr'H Executive Officer Vs Puneet Bansal and Anr.

Jagsir Singh Lrs of Naranjan Singh Vs Registrar Coop. Socieites, Chd. and Ors.

Lachman Kaur and Anr. Vs Gurmit Singh

Ashwani Bhardwaj Vs Harbans Kaur and Anr.

Mohinder Singh Alias Sadhu Singh Vs Raj Kaur Alias Surjit Kaur