Allowed

Group 4 Securitas India Pvt, Ltd, Mohali v. Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Chd

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Dec 2010CR/8132/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging an impugned order striking off defence for non-filing of written statement, the High Court held that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory. Applying Kailash vs. Nanhku”, it allowed filing within 15 days and awarded ₹5000 cost, directing dismissal without notice first.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file written statement within 15 days and pay ₹5000 cost to respondent.

Group 4 Securitas India Pvt, Ltd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.R. No. 8132 of 2010

¶3

Date of Decision: 15.12.2010

¶4

Group 4 Securitas India Pvt. Ltd.

¶5

.... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Surya Pharmaceuticals Limited

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

¶10

Present : Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.6.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Chandigarh whereby defence of the defendant-petitioner was directed to be struck off for non-filing of written statement within the time fixed by this Court.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after dismissal of the revision petition by this Court there was communication gap between the counsel and the defendantpetitioner, hence, written statement could not be filed within time. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that written statement is ready and shall be filed within such time as fixed by this Court.

¶17

Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Prem Lata Vs. Ram Sarup reported in 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 423 placing reliance on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter

¶18

of Batala Machine Tools Workshop Coop. vs. Presiding Officer,

¶19

C.R. No. 8132 of 2010

¶20

¶21

Labour Court, Gurdaspur has held that matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission without any notice to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings.

¶22

In the opinion of this Court, present petition can be disposed of without issuing any notice to the plaintiff-respondent at the admission stage. This Court further finds that issuing notice to the plaintiff-respondent would amount to unnecessary delay in the disposal of the suit, hence, this Court proposes to decide the present petition without issuing notice to the plaintiff-respondent.

¶23

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

¶24

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 petitioner/defendant shall file written statement within 15 days from today in the Court below.

¶25

Defendant-petitioner 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.

¶26

C.R. No. 8132 of 2010

¶27

¶28

On filing written statement and payment of cost, learned trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. If respondent feel aggrieved from this order, he shall be at liberty to move this

¶29

Court for recalling of the order.

¶30

Petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(ALOK SINGH) JUDGE

¶32

15.12.2010

¶33

reena

Group 4 Securitas India Pvt, Ltd, Mohali v. Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Chd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Group 4 Securitas India Pvt, Ltd, Mohali v. Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Chd

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

Neelam Goyal & Anr. Vs Sagar Goyal

Khushpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ranjit Kaur Vs Charanjit Kaur & Ors.

State of Haryana etc. Vs Vinod Tayal

Ameet Singh and Anr. Vs Gurmel Singh and Ors.

Mohmad Bilal and Ors. Vs Daud and Ors.