In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court set aside an order declining the filing of a written statement due to delay. The Court exercised discretion to allow filing within a fortnight to prevent injustice.
Set aside the order declining the written statement; petitioner allowed to file written statement within a fortnight.
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-3054-2014
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision-3054-2014 Date of Decision : 7.5.2014
Smt.Avtar Kahlon and others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Raj Dulari and another
.....Respondent(s)
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is to the order dated 10.10.2013 which declines the prayer of the petitioners, the defendants before the trial Court, to present their written statement.
Mr.Balvir Singh Giri after inspecting the record of the trial Court submits that the registered notices issued to the defendants were received back unserved. He submits that there was no service of summons on the defendants by due process of law. The defendants came to know of the proceedings and entered appearance, for the first time, on 18.7.2013. Therefore, 90 days would run from the first date of appearance of petitioner No.3. On appearance put in by petitioner No.3, he informed his co-petitioners No.1 and 2, who are defendants No.1 to 3 in the suit and that is how, all the three appeared on 18.7.2013. The learned trial Court has declined to accept the written statement under
Kumar Paritosh 2014.05.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
: 2 :
CR-3054-2014
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for the reason that 90 days had expired which prohibited acceptance of the written statement. Even in cases, in which the period of 90 days has expired, the trial Court can yet exercise its discretion under Section 151 CPC either to enlarge the time for filing the written statement or to extend the time to do so. Shutting out a written statement has serious legal consequence as it will make the plaintiff's succeed by default and for reason of non-traverse of the facts pleaded in the plaint.
In order to avoid serious miscarriage of justice, the impugned order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi is set aside by accepting this petition. The plaintiff's evidence has not begun and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to them, in case the written statement is permitted to be taken on record and the right to claim issues other than those which have been framed or to recast them would be given. Thereafter, the trial to proceed.
The acceptance of this petition would mean that the petitioners will have a right to file a written statement but within a fortnight from the date a certified copy of this order is received.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE
May 7, 2014 Paritosh Kumar
Kumar Paritosh 2014.05.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's order declining the acceptance of a written statement beyond the 90-day limit.
Whether the trial court has discretion under Section 151 CPC to accept a delayed written statement to avoid miscarriage of justice.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Avtar Kahlon and others
Raj Dulari and another
Rajiv Narain Raina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
