Dismissed

Karaj Singh v. Malkiat Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jan 2011CR/126/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order striking off a defendant's defense for non-filing of a written statement. The court held that there was no manifest illegality warranting interference under Article 227 despite multiple adjournments and lack of sufficient cause shown.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order striking off defense of the petitioner-defendant remained unaffected.

Karaj Singh Vs Malkiat Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No.126 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.126 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 7, 2011

Karaj Singh

.....Petitioner

Malkiat Singh

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Ms.Monika Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.....

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 10.9.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana, vide which defence of petitioner-defendant was ordered to be struck off.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court, vide which defence of petitioner-defendant was ordered to be struck off for non filing of the written statement despite several opportunities.

¶16

Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing petitioner-defendant to return the cheques and the other documents. On summon being issued for appearance of petitionerdefendant, appearance was put on his behalf on 18.9.2009 and the case was fixed for filing written statement on 28.10.2009. However, written statement was not filed on 28.10.2009 and the case was adjourned to 25.11.2009. Even on 25.11.2009, the written statement was not filed and rather an application for producing original documents was filed and the case was fixed for 8.1.2010 for the said purpose. However, on 8.1.2010 it was adjourned for the same purpose for 22.1.2010, when reply to the application was filed and the documents were also produced and the copies

¶17

Civil Revision No.126 of 2011 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

supplied to the present petitioner-defendant. These facts have also been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant before this Court. The case was adjourned for consideration of the said application for 4.2.2010, 17.3.2010, 27.4.2010 and then 27.7.2010, on which date the said application was withdrawn by the petitioner-defendant.

¶20

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitionerdefendant that the application was withdrawn as the documents were already supplied alongwith the reply on 22.1.2010.

¶21

Learned trial Court granted another opportunity to the present petitioner-defendant to file written statement for 16.8.2010 and however, even on that date he did not file the same and hence last opportunity was granted to him subject to payment of Rs.300 as cost.

¶22

Perusal of the impugned order shows that written statement was not filed despite last opportunity. Even cost has also not been paid and hence, the impugned order was passed, which reads as under:“ Written statement not filed. Cost also not deposited. Statutory period for filing of written statement has already been elapsed. Learned defence counsel requested for adjournment, but no ground is made to adjourn the case for filing of written statement. So defence of the defendant is struck off. Case is now adjourned to 25.1.2011 for evidence of plaintiff.”

¶23

Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the filing of written statement. It is pertinent to reproduce the same, which reads as under:-

¶24

Writen statement.- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

¶25

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.”

¶26

Petitioner-defendant was required to file the written statement

¶27

-3-

¶28

Civil Revision No.126 of 2011 (O&M)

¶29

within 30 days of the appearance and even trial Court could not grant more than 90 days to petitioner-defendant for filing written statement on reasons recorded. No application for production of documents was filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant on the first date of appearance. The application was filed on the 3^rd date of appearance. The documents were supplied on 22.1.2010. However, despite that written statement was not filed for another nine months, as is clear from the copies of orders reproduced in the petition. Hence, there was no cause, what to talk of sufficient cause, for giving another opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to file written statement by the trial Court.

¶30

Hence, it cannot be said that trial Court has committed any illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court.

¶31

Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. It is not such a case in which this Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

¶32

There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed.

¶33

meenu

¶34

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶35

7.1.2011

Karaj Singh v. Malkiat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karaj Singh v. Malkiat Singh

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

Sushil and Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat v. Assan Khurd and Ors.

Ishwar Singh and Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat v. Assan Khurd and Ors.

Birham Pal and Ors. Vs Niranjan Singh and Anr.

Harbans Lal etc. Vs Vidya Adevi and Ors.

Shanti Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harish Chander Vs Gajinder Singh Dhingra