Allowed

Union of India and Ors. v. Bakshish Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2010CR/5905/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two cross-petitions regarding a trial court order striking off the Union of India's defence and a subsequent review order that restored it. The Court allowed both revisions, set aside both trial court orders, and directed that the written statement and costs tendered by the Union of India be accepted as valid.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 25.2.2010 and 1.12.2009 are set aside; the written statement tendered by the Union of India is considered filed.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Bakshish… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 5905 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(1) Civil Revision No. 5905 of 2010 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 17.9.2010.

¶6

Union of India ....Petitioner Versus

¶7

Bakshish Singh and others ...Respondents

¶8

(2) Civil Revision No. 2230 of 2010 (O&M )

¶9

Bakshish Singh and others ...Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Union of India and others ...Respondents

¶12

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg

¶13

Present:Ms. Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Advocate for Union of India-petitioner-respondents.

¶14

Mr. Narinder Lucky Advocate for Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for respondents-petitioners.

¶15

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J

¶16

This judgment shall dispose of two Revision Petitions i.e. Civil Revision No. 5905 of 2010 titled as Union of India Vs. Bakshish Singh and others and Civil Revision No. 2230 of 2010 titled as Bakshish Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others. As per the averments both these petitions have arisen out of the same civil suit pending between the parties and relates to same controversy.

¶17

As per the averments, Bakshish Singh and others (who are respondents in Civil Revision No. 5905 of 2010 and petitioners in Civil Revision No. 2230 of 2010) filed a suit for permanent injunction against Union of India and others restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly and without following the due course of law. In the aforesaid suit, the defence of the Union of India was struck off by the trial Court vide its order dated 1.12.2009 as no written statement was filed despite last opportunity granted and for not making the payment of costs. The Civil Revision No. 5905 of 2010 has been filed by the Union of India, challenging the aforesaid order dated 1.12.2009.

¶18

Civil Revision No. 5905 of 2010 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

It is also relevant to mention, at this stage, that Union of India had earlier filed an application for review of the aforesaid order before the trial Court and the same was allowed by the trial Court vide its order dated 25.2.2010 granting opportunity to the Union of India to file written statement, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/-. Bakshish Singh etc., the plaintiffs, have filed Civil Revision No. 2230 of 2010 challenging the aforesaid order dated 25.2.2010 on the ground that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to review its own order dated 1.12.2009.

¶21

It is not in dispute that in pursuance to the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the trial Court, the Union of India has already filed its written statement and has also tendered the costs to the plaintiffs/respondents and the aforesaid written statement is on record of the trial Court. It is also not in dispute that the suit is at the preliminary stage. It is well settled that provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are directory in nature. Again it is well settled that provisions of civil procedure are hand made for administration of justice and the same are to be construed liberally.

¶22

Thus keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 1.12.2009 was liable to be set aside by granting one opportunity to the Union of India to file its written statement. However, this Court is constrained to observe that the order dated 25.2.2010 could not have been passed by the trial Court legally and the same being without jurisdiction is also liable to the set aside.

¶23

In this view of the matter, both the Civil Revisions are allowed. The orders dated 25.2.2010 and 1.12.2009 are set aside. Since, the Union of India has already tendered the costs and filed its written statement which is on the record, the same shall be considered to be the written statement filed on behalf of Union of India and the trial Court shall proceed further with the suit in accordance with law.

¶24

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶25

17.9.2010. Reema

Union of India and Ors. v. Bakshish Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Bakshish 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

Jit Singh@Ajit Singh Vs Bhupinder Singh and Ors.

State of Haryana etc. Vs Ram Bhaj @ Amar Pal

Suresh Kumar etc. Vs Prem Parkash etc.

Bakshish Singh etc. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bhajan Singh Vs Randhir Singh and Ors.

Banta Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Soodan