Allowed

Ramesh and Anr. v. Bharat Bhushan and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2012CR/153/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging orders dismissing applications to file a written statement. Despite prior remission, the petitioners failed to pay costs or appear, evidencing malicious delay. The court allowed the revision, imposing heavy costs to motivate future compliance.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is allowed; petitioners are directed to pay a further cost of Rs.50,000 to the plaintiffs in addition to the earlier cost of Rs.20,000.

Ramesh and Anr. Vs Bharat Bhushan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR No.153 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CIVIL REVISION NO.153 OF 2012 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 09, 2012

Ramesh & another

.... Petitioners

Versus

Bharat Bhushan & others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Defendants No.1 and 2 have filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat.

¶16

The case has chequered history. Petitioners failed to file written statement and their defence was accordingly struck off by the trial Court vide order dated 14.08.2006. Thereafter, at subsequent stage petitioners were proceeded ex parte in the trial Court vide order dated 23.11.2007. Subsequently petitioners moved application for setting aside both the aforesaid orders. Trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 05.02.2010. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by way of civil revision No.3311 of 2010, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated

¶17

CR No.153 of 2012

¶18

-2-

¶19

06.04.2011 Annexure P-1 subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as cost. Thereafter the case was taken up in the trial Court on 28.04.2011 and also on 13.06.2011. The petitioners, however, neither paid the cost amount nor filed written statement. Accordingly, the trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.06.2011 proceeded further with the suit.

¶20

The petitioners thereafter filed application Annexure P-3 for recall of order dated 13.06.2011 and for permitting the petitioners to file written statement. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing reply Annexure P-4. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 15.11.2011 Annexure P-5 has dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed the instant revision petition

¶21

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

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners were not communicated order Annexure P-1 of this Court by their counsel in the lower court and therefore, they could not pay the cost amount as per order Annexure P-1 and could not file written statement. The contention has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate representing the petitioners in this revision petition was also their counsel in the previous revision petition No.3311 of 2010. Mr. Ghangas states that he had transmitted the brief of the previous revision petition to petitioners' counsel in the trial Court along with copy of order Annexure P-1 and Clerk of counsel of the trial Court sent intimation to the petitioners through some other resident of the same village, who did not communicate it to the petitioners. However,

¶23

CR No.153 of 2012

¶24

-3-

¶25

petitioners' counsel in the trial Court had been appearing in the trial Court and was aware of order Annexure P-1 passed by the trial Court. Consequently, it cannot be said that petitioners were ignorant of order Annexure P-1.

¶26

Initially defence of the petitioners was struck off on 14.08.2006. They did not challenge the said order at that stage. They continued appearing in the trial Court. Ultimately none appeared on their behalf on 23.11.2007 and they were proceeded ex parte. Then after two years, they moved application in the trial Court for setting aside the aforesaid orders dated 14.08.2006 and 23.11.2007. It is thus manifest that sole intention of the petitioners was to delay the disposal of the suit. However, inspite thereof, this Court vide order Annexure P-1 showed indulgence towards the petitioners and set aside said orders dated 14.08.2006 and 23.11.2007, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as cost. The petitioners still did not comply with the said order, obviously with malafide intention of delaying the disposal of the suit, which is now pending for almost six years having been instituted on 04.03.2006. Even the instant revision petition was not instituted immediately but has been instituted after waiting for more than seven weeks.

¶27

Keeping in view the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the petitioners should be burdened with further heavy cost of Rs.50,000/- so as to allow them benefit of order Annexure P-1 at this belated stage.

¶28

I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to plaintiffs so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the plaintiffs from the expenses they may have to incur for engaging counsel

¶29

CR No.153 of 2012

¶30

-4-

¶31

for this revision petition if notice thereof is issued to them. However, nevertheless if the plaintiffs are not satisfied with this order, they shall be at liberty to move this Court for recalling the order.

¶32

Subject to above said observations, the instant petition is allowed and petitioners are subjected to further cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the plaintiffs in addition to cost of Rs.20,000/- imposed vide order Annexure P-1 so as to avail the benefit of order Annexure P-1.

¶33

(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶34

09.01.2012 'raj'

Ramesh and Anr. v. Bharat Bhushan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh and Anr. v. Bharat Bhushan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Vs Mohinder Singh

Ram Kishan Vs Man Singh & Ors.

Manoj Kumar & Anr. Vs Anil

Gurtej Singh Vs Jaswinder Singh etc.

Jatinder Pal Singh Vs Bishan Singh Dhaliwal

Krishana and Ors. Vs Sunita and Anr.