Defendants petitioners sought revision against an order striking off their defence under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC due to non-filing of written statement and non-deposit of costs before the trial court.
Revision petition dismissed; monetary costs were deposited after the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No.6743 of 2010(O & M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6743 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:13.10.2010
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors.
.....petitioners
Versus
Jai Parkash
.....respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Mohnish Sharma,Advocate for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners
RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL):
This is defendants' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 09.04.2010, whereby its defence was struck off.
As per the averments made in this petition, on 09.04.2010, the case was fixed before the trial Court for filing of the written statement and reply to the stay application by the defendants-petitioners subject to payment of costs of ` 200/-. While passing the impugned order, the Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Gurgaon noticed that in spite of availing sufficient opportunities, the petitioners had failed to file the written statement. Even they failed to deposit the costs and, thus, struck off the defence of the petitioners.
While challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioners have averred as under:
“That on the receipt of the notices in the above mentioned
Civil Revision No.6743 of 2010(O & M)
2
case to petitioners/defendants, the petitioners/defendants appeared before the ld.trial Court through their counsel Sh.Y.S.Gulia, Advocate. The office record was made available to Sh.Y.S.Gulia, Advocate but after some time, the defendants/petitioners were asked by their counsel to submit more documents and necessary information regarding the case of respondents/plaintiff for preparing the written statement and reply to the stay application on behalf of the defendants/petitioners. After preparation of the written statement and reply to stay application by the learned courts below the same were sent to the office of the respondentNigam for signatures but inadvertently the same could not be signed by the concerned competent authority on 09.04.2010 and thus when the above mentioned case was taken up by the learned trial court below, the counsel for the defendants prayed for adjournment for filing the written statement and reply to the stay application. However, the learned trial court did not give any further adjournment to the defendants for filing the written statement and reply to the stay application and in a hot, hurried and hasty manner struck off the defence of the defendants/petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC vide order dated 09.04.2010 and adjourned the case for 04.06.2010 for ex parte evidence. A true fair typed copy of the order dated 09.04.2010 is attached herewith as Annexure P-1. It is pertinent to mention here that in the order dated 09.04.2010 Annexure P-1 the learned court below also mentioned that the cost of ` 200/is not deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Gurgaon. However, it is most humbly submitted that the cost
Civil Revision No.6743 of 2010(O & M)
3
of ` 200/- was deposited by the defendants/respondent on the same date i.e.09.04.2010 vide receipt No.0045525. The true fair typed copy of the receipt dated 09.04.2010 is attached herewith as Annexure P-2.
However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has very fairly stated that the costs of ` 200/-, vide Annexure P-2 were deposited after passing of the impugned order.
In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that pleadings made by the petitioners before this Court which are supported by an affidavit, are erroneous and misleading.
Without going further into the merits of this case, this court is not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
13.10.2010
neenu
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors.
Jai Parkash
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
