This court allowed the present revision petition, granting the petitioner, an incapacitated elderly woman involved in a family lawsuit, one opportunity to file her written statement despite the defence having been struck off.
Defendant No.2-petitioner is granted one opportunity to file her written statement by the next date of hearing of the suit.
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.
1
CR-6234-2018 ( O &M)
[398] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI G ARH
CR-6234-2018(O&M) Date of D ecision :09.12.2024
Amar Ka u r …Petitioner
versus
Baldev S i ngh ….Respondent
Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain
Present : Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advoc a te for the petitioner.
Mr. Arjunveer Sharma, Adv o cate for the respondent.
Pankaj Jain, J.
[1] Challenge is to the order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the learned C ivil Judge (Junior Division) , Jalandhar, whereby defence of defendan t No.2-petitioner stands struck off for having not filed wri t ten statemen t within the prescribed period.
[2] This is an unfortunate lis be t ween mother and son. Son fil e d a suit for permanent injunction, seekin g decree of permanent injunc t ion against h i s brother and mother. Defenda n t No.2-petitioner appeared thro u gh her coun s el on 30.11.2015. Thereafter, an application was moved by the defendan t s for production of documents. However, on 18.10.2016, defe n ce of defen d ant No.2-petitioner was struck off. The case of defendant N o .2petitione r is that her husband, who was ta k ing care of her Court cases fell ill and was h ospitalized in October, 2013 f or renal failure and liver probl e m. He remai n ed hospitalized till April, 2015. She is an incapacitated old lad y
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.13 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2
CR-6234-2018 ( O &M)
of 80 ye a rs of age and pleads for an opportunity to file written statem e nt. Vide ord e r dated 02.12.2024, parties we r e called in Court. Today, both the parties h a ve appeared. On the askin g of the Court, defendant N o .2petitione r expressed that she has no des i re to compromise the dispute w ith the respo n dent-plaintiff owing to the mal treatment that was meted out to her by plaintiff.
[3] Though, there is no cogent r eason to interfere in the impug n ed order yet in the interest of justice and ke e ping in view that the present lis is between t he family members, this Court f inds it apt to grant one opportu n ity to defend a nt No.2-petitioner to file her w r itten statement. The opportunit y is being gr a nted considering her old age. Even before this Court, she w as brought i n the wheel chair which is testi m ony to her incapacity.
[4] In view of the above, in or d er to serve the interest of just i ce, present r e vision petition is allowed . D e fendant No.2-petitioner is gra n ted in one oppo r tunity to file her written state m ent. On the next date of hearin g the suit, d efendant No.2-petitioner shall f i le the written statement. [5] All miscellaneous applicatio n (s), if any, stands disposed off .
(Pankaj Jain) Judge
09.12.20 2 4 ‘R. Sharma’
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.13 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order striking off the defence of the petitioner.
Whether a response order should be granted considering the petitioner's old age and incapacity in a family dispute.
Whether the petition for vacation of the impugned order should be allowed.
Amar Kaur
Baldev Singh
Pankaj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
