Allowed

Bakhshish Kaur @ Seeso v. Karnail Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2012CR/1011/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice L.N. Mittall allowed a revision petition under Article 227 Constitution. The court granted the petitioner one more opportunity to file a written statement in the underlying civil suit, imposing a heavy cost of Rs. 20,000 as a precedent for the delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted one more opportunity to file written statement on 14.03.2012, subject to payment of Rs. 20,000 as cost precedent.

Bakhshish Kaur @ Seeso Vs Karnail Singh… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 1011 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 1011 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision : February 16, 2012

¶6

Bakhshish Kaur @ Seeso .... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. Karnail Singh and others .... Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

Defendant no.7 Bakhshish Kaur @ Seeso has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, thereby striking off the defence of the petitioner for non-filing of written statement.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for filing written statement.

¶16

C. R. No. 1011 of 2012

¶17

¶18

I have carefully considered the prayer.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner-defendant no.7 put in appearance in the trial court in July 2010. She did not file the written statement for more than 15 months till passing of impugned order dated 08.11.2011. Under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), written statement is required to be filed within 30 days of service of summons, but in any case, not later than 90 days. In the instant case, instead of 03 months, the petitioner was granted more than 15 months' time to file written statement, but still she failed to file the same. The aforesaid provision has been introduced by amendment of CPC to curtail delay in the disposal of cases because such delay is inviting widespread criticism and rightly so. Culture of seeking unnecessary adjournments has to be curbed and curtailed. This culture of seeking large number of avoidable and unnecessary adjournments is bringing a bad name to the system of administration of justice.

¶20

Having said as aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted only one more opportunity to file her written statement, subject to payment of very heavy cost. The petitioner has to be subjected to very heavy cost because she already availed of more than 15 months in the trial court and even the instant revision petition was filed more than 03 months after the passing of the impugned order.

¶21

C. R. No. 1011 of 2012

¶22

¶23

However, nevertheless, the petitioner is being granted another opportunity to file written statement because Courts always try that a lis should be decided on merits instead of by default of either party.

¶24

I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to respondent no.1-plaintiff so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save respondent no.1-plaintiff of the expenses he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the purpose of this revision petition, if notice thereof is issued to him.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, instant revision petition is allowed and trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioner to file her written statement, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as cost precedent. The petitioner shall file written statement in the trial court on or before 14.03.2012 – the date already fixed in suit in the trial court.

¶26

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶27

February 16, 2012

¶28

monika

Bakhshish Kaur @ Seeso v. Karnail Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakhshish Kaur @ Seeso v. Karnail 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

Satpal & Anr. Vs Mahavir & Anr.

Chetan and Ors. Vs Narain Singh

Kishan Singh Vs Shankar Singh

Satya Devi & Ors. Vs Joginder Kumar & Ors.

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs Harmail Singh

Ram Kuwar & Anr. Vs Bal Kishan & Anr.