Revision petition against striking off tenant's defence. Court allowed filing of written statement subject to payment of costs, relying on liberal construction of CPC and Salem judgment, with strict warning against further delay.
Revision petition allowed; written statement permitted upon payment of Rs.5,000 costs to respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR No.3888 of 2013 Date of decision: 04.07.2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Mohammad Ibrahim
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Gurmeet Kaur Pamma
......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Sunil Toni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 15.4.2013 whereby his defence has been struck off for not filing the written statement.
Challenging the aforesaid order, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for administration of justice and they are to be construed liberally in the interest of justice. He has further argued that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory as settled by catena of judgments and in appropriate cases, the Court may allow filing of written statement after the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of service of summons. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in this case, the petitioner could not file the written statement as he was out of country. He has produced before this Court a written statement which is ready to be filed on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner shall file the written statement today itself without further causing delay. He has informed this Court that the Rent Controller has kept the case for today. He has also submitted before this Court that
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CR No.3888 of 2013
-2-
the petitioner is ready to pay the reasonable costs.
Keeping in view the submissions made and the law laid down
in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu versus Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3353, and also the facts as mentioned above, this revision petition is allowed without issuing notice to the respondent-landlord which will further delay the proceedings subject to payment of costs which are assessed at Rs.5,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the respondent.
It is made clear that payment of costs shall be a condition precedent to file the written statement. It is further made clear that no further opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to file written statement.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of the Bench Secretary.
July 04, 2013 ps
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the tenant can file a written statement after the 90-day limitation period.
Whether the revision petition should be allowed without issuing notice to the respondent landlord.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu versus Union of IndiaRelied on¶19
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu versus Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3353 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammad Ibrahim
Gurmeet Kaur Pamma
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
