Allowed

Arti Khanna v. Shubhas Chander & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Aug 2010CR/5300/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a revision petition pleading谚语 Article 227, setting aside an order striking off defence. The court directed the lower court to grant one more opportunity to file a written statement without issuing notice to the plaintiff-respondent.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order striking off defence is set aside; the trial court is directed to grant one more opportunity to file written statement on 26.08.2010 without issuing notice to the respondent.

Arti Khanna Vs Shubhas Chander & Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

C. R. No. 5300 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 5300 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision : August 23, 2010

¶6

Arti Khanna .... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Subash Chander and another .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶14

Defendant no.1 Arti Khanna has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 16.07.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, thereby striking off defence of defendant no.1-petitioner for not filing written statement.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to file written statement.

¶16

I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer.

¶17

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that defendant no.1-

¶18

C. R. No. 5300 of 2010

¶19

¶20

petitioner appeared through counsel in the trial court on 09.04.2010. Petitioner did not file written statement till 16.07.2010, when the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had instructed her counsel to file the written statement, but he did not do the needful and thereupon, the petitioner had to change her counsel in the trial court. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that defendant no.2 is yet to be summoned. Consequently, if another opportunity is granted to defendant no.1-petitioner for filing written statement, progress of the suit would not be delayed in any manner.

¶21

I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to the plaintiff-respondent no.1 so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and to save the respondents of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the instant revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to them.

¶22

For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order Annexure P-3 is set aside to the extent of striking off defence of defendant no.1-petitioner and the trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to defendant no.1-petitioner to file written statement on 26.08.2010 i.e. the date already fixed in the trial court.

¶23

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶24

August 23, 2010

¶25

monika

Arti Khanna v. Shubhas Chander & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arti Khanna v. Shubhas Chander & Anr.

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

Jasbir Kaur Vs Rupinder Kaur and Others

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Balwant Singh @ Babbu Vs State of Punjab etc.

Dalip Singh and Ors. Vs Gurnam Singh and Ors.

Bahadur Singh and Ors. Vs Baljit Singh and Ors.

Kavita and Ors. Vs Sardari Lal and Anr.