Allowed

Rajbala and Ors. v. Suresh Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Oct 2012CR/5751/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-member bench allowed a revision petition under Article 227 granting the petitioners one further opportunity to file written statement and reply to injunction application, subject to payment of Rs. 15,000 heavy costs for delay, without issuing notice to the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to grant one more opportunity to file written statement and reply to injunction application on next date of hearing subject to payment of Rs. 15,000 as costs precedent.

Rajbala and Ors. Vs Suresh Kumar and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 5751 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 5751 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision : October 09, 2012

¶6

Smt. Rajbala and others

¶7

.... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Suresh Kanwar @ Suresh Kumar and others .... Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

C. M. No. 25552-C-II of 2012 :

¶16

Application is allowed and proposed written statement and reply to injunction application are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶17

C. M. No. 24657-C-II of 2012 :

¶18

Allowed as prayed for.

¶19

C. M. No. 24658-C-II of 2012 :

¶20

Application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-4 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶21

Main Case :

¶22

C. R. No. 5751 of 2012 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

Defendants no.4 to 6 have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by orders dated 16.10.2008 (Annexure P-1) and 30.08.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court. Vide order Annexure P-1, defence of defendants no.4 to 7 (petitioners and proforma respondent no.11) has been struck off due to nonfiling of written statement, whereas vide order Annexure P-4, trial court has dismissed application Annexure P-2 moved by defendants no.4 to 7 for recalling order Annexure P-1.

¶25

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case

¶26

file.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioners prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioners for filing their written statement and reply to application for temporary injunction. It was submitted that proposed written statement and reply have now been placed on the record of the instant revision petition.

¶28

I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer.

¶29

Perusal of zimni orders of the trial court reveals that the petitioners had put in appearance through counsel in the trial court on 03.02.2006, but they failed to file their written statement till 16.10.2008 i.e. for more than two years and eight months. Even application Annexure P-2 for recall of order Annexure P-1 was filed after three months on 12.01.2009.

¶30

Counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that there has

¶31

C. R. No. 5751 of 2012 (O&M)

¶32

¶33

been no further progress of the case in the trial of the suit and no evidence has yet been adduced by respondent no.1-plaintiff.

¶34

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion

¶35

that ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are granted another opportunity to file their written statement and reply to injunction application, on payment of heavy costs. The petitioners have to be subjected to heavy costs for long and inordinate delay on their part in filing written statement and reply to injunction application.

¶36

I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to plaintiff-respondent no.1 so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save plaintiff-respondent no.1 of the financial burden he may have to bear in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to him.

¶37

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioners to file their written statement and reply to injunction application, which shall be filed on or before the next date of hearing before the trial court, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs precedent, to be paid along with filing of written statement and reply to injunction application on the same day.

¶38

October 09, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE

Rajbala and Ors. v. Suresh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbala and Ors. v. Suresh Kumar 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

Balwinder Kumar Vs Naresh Saini & Anr.

Balwinder Kumar Vs Naresh Saini etc.

(O&M) Priya Mishra Vs Ashutosh Mishra

State of Punjab Vs Subhash Chander

Neera Bhatia Vs B.K. Puri and Ors.

Krishan Kumar and Others Vs Ram Nandi and Others