Mukesh @ Mukesh Gupta And Ors vs Umesh And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5292 P&H

SANDEEP GROVER
2023.04.25 16:29

CR No.2462 of 2023 (O&M) 2023: PHHC:057995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

114
CR No.2462 of 2023 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 25" APRIL, 2023

Mukesh @ Mukesh Gupta and others
.... Petitioners
Versus

Umesh and others
.... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

Present: | Mr. Ajay Kumar Dahiya, Advocate

for the petitioners.
3K OK OK 2
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad (for short, the trial Court), whereby defence of the petitioners and right to file the written statement has been struck off, with certain other prayers made in the present petition.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court has gone wrong in law in striking off the right of the petitioners to file the written statement and to defend the suit accordingly. The proceedings of the suit were still at the stage of service upon defendants and filing of power of attorney by the counsels. Therefore, the written statement could not be filed by the counsel, under an impression, though

misconceived, that the written statement can be filed after the service

| attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -l-

SANDEEP GROVER 2023.04.25 16:29

CR No.2462 of 2023 (O&M) 2023: PHHC:057995

upon all the defendants was complete. Moreover, there had been a communication gap between the petitioners and their counsel. The petitioners are the contesting defendants in the suit. Therefore, their case would be seriously prejudiced, if they are not granted permission to file the written statement; and to defend the suit accordingly. Hence, it is prayed that at least one opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file the written statement and to defend the suit accordingly.

3. In view of the nature of order being passed, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the other side, at this stage.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the case file, this Court finds that the petitioners had been granted as many as, at least, three effective opportunities for filing the written statement after appearance. Therefore, this Court does not find any ex facie impropriety with the course of action adopted by the trial Court.

5. However, the law of procedure is handmade to advance the interest of the substantial justice. The demand of the substantial justice is that the parties are heard-out; instead of excluding them from hearing. Moreover, since in the present case, undisputedly, the proceedings of the suit were at the stage of service upon the defendants and for filing of power of attorney. Therefore, the petitioners might have some kind of impression that they can be permitted to file the written statement after the service upon all defendants was complete. The petitioners are the contesting defendants in the suit, therefore, their case would be adversely affected if they are not permitted to file the written statement and to

defend the suit accordingly. Hence, it would not be unjustified to grant

| attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -2-

CR No.2462 of 2023 (O&M) 2023: PHHC:057995

one opportunity to the petitioners to file written statement, and thereafter to defend the suit in accordance with law, however, by putting them under an appropriate financial burden; so as to make them realize their mistake in wasting time of the Court.

6. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to grant one more effective opportunity to the petitioners to file the written statement; and thereafter to defend the suit accordingly, however, subject to payment of 10,000/- as costs, to be deposited by the petitioners with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, within a period of 15 days from today.

7. However, it is clarified that the petitioners shall be granted the above said opportunity only on production of the receipt before the

trial Court qua the petitioners having deposited the costs; as ordered

above.

8. Disposed of in the above terms.

25" APRIL, 2023 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)

'sandeep' JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No

Whether Reportable: Yes No

SANDEEP GROVER

2023.04.25 16:29

| attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment. -3-