Disposed

Vijay Kumar Korpal v. Ram Kumar Sharma and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2024CR/3471/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the trial court's order striking off the petitioner's defence due to prolonged non-filing of the written statement. However, to ensure an opportunity to contest on merits, the Court granted conditional leave to file a statement upon payment of ₹50,000 as costs within seven days to the opposing party.

What did the court decide?

Leaves a conditional opportunity to file written statement on payment of ₹50,000 to the respondent within seven days.

Vijay Kumar Korpal Vs Ram Kumar Sharma and… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

********

¶3

117

¶4

CR-3471-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision.:25.09.2024

¶5

Vijay Kumar Korpal Pe55oner Vs.

¶6

Ram Kumar Sharma and Others Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶8

Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶9

Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶10

¶11

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Pe��oner is defendant No.1 before the trial Court of ld. Addi�onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), SBS Nagar. His defence has been struck off by way of impugned order dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure P-3), which has been assailed before this Court.

¶13

Although no formal no�ce of mo�on has been issued but Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1- plain�ff and has filed his power of a8orney.

¶14

As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent No.1plain�ff, the pe��oner- defendant No.1 had put in appearance before the Court for the first �me on 24.01.2023 through Mr. Yudhvir Bajaj, Advocate. Said Mr. Yudhvir Bajaj, Advocate was regularly appearing before the trial Court but did not file the wri8en statement despite availing numerous opportuni�es. So

¶15

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.25 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CR-3471-2024 (O&M)

¶17

much so, cost of ₹300/- was ini�ally imposed on 31.08.2023, which was later on enhanced to ₹500/- on 12.03.2024 but the same was not paid. Perusal of the various zimni orders as placed on record by learned counsel for respondent No.1- plain�ff would reveal that it was 10^th effec�ve opportunity for defendant No.1- pe��oner when he did not file the wri8en statement and it is compelled by these circumstances that Court struck off the defence of the defendant No.1 by way of the impugned order.

¶18

Although having regard to the aforesaid conduct of the pe��onerdefendnat No.1, he does not deserve any relief from this Court but in the interest of jus�ce and so as to provide an opportunity to him to contest the case on merits, one opportunity is provided to him to file the wri8en statement but subject to ₹50,000/- as cost. The said cost shall be paid by the pe��onerdefendnat No.1 to the plain�ff- respondent by way of a Demand Dra> within 07 days posi�vely.

¶19

Trial Court will provide one opportunity to the pe��oner to file the wri8en statement and then proceed further in accordance with law.

¶20

Disposed of.

¶21

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE September 25, 2024 Nee�ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶22

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.25 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vijay Kumar Korpal v. Ram Kumar Sharma and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Korpal v. Ram Kumar Sharma and Others

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

Satya @ Balwinder Kaur Vs Harjinder Singh & Ors.

Ashish Kishore Vs Darspal Singh and Ors.

Tarlochan Singh Vs Union Bank of India and Another

Sukhdev Singh Vs Mukhtiar Kaur

Amit Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana

Kuljeet Kaur and Another Vs Bhullan Devi and Others