Punjab-Haryana High Court
Phool Chand And Others vs Prem Singh on 31 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097658
1
Civil Revision No. 4272 of 2023 2023:PHHC: 097658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 4272 of 2023(O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.07.2023
Phool Chand & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
Prem Singh
...Respondent
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
For the petitioners.
***
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/
defendants against the order dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Patiala whereby an application filed
by the respondent/ plaintiff for striking off the defence of the petitioners on
account of non filing of written statement within prescribed statutory period,
was allowed.
2. The counsel for the petitioners submits that on receiving the
notice of suit, petitioners appeared before the learned trial Court for the first
time on 06.10.2022 and thereafter time was granted to them to file written
statement and petitioners filed written statement on 16.03.2023 and the same
was taken on record by the learned trial Court. The counsel for the
petitioners further submits that delay in filing of the written statement
occurred as in the interregnum period petitioners filed one application to
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097658
Civil Revision No. 4272 of 2023 2023:PHHC: 097658
direct the respondent/ plaintiff to submit site plan with better particulars
regarding site in dispute. That after the filing of written statement,
respondent/ plaintiff filed an application to strike off the defence of the
petitioners as they failed to file written statement within 90 days from the
date of appearance i.e. 06.10.2022. The counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the said application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide
order (Annexure P-1) while relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.S. Chamankar
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2019 (2) RCR (Civil) 249. The counsel
for the petitioners further submits that the aforesaid judgment was passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a matter relating to Commercial Courts,
whereas the present suit is a suit simpliciter for permanent injunction to
restrain the petitioners from encroaching the private passage. The counsel
for the petitioners further submits that the aforesaid case law is not
applicable to the case in hand and thus the learned trial Court fell into error.
In support of his contentions, the counsel for petitioners has referred to Raj
Process Equipments & Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Honest Derivatives
Pvt. Ltd. 2023(1) RCR(Civil) 511
3. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioners.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Process Equipments &
Systems Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) while taking into consideration the law laid
down in SCG Contract's case (supra) held that the suit that became the
subject matter of dispute in SCG Contract's case (supra) appears to have
been filed before the Commercial Court and not before the normal Civil
Court and in so far as normal Civil Courts are concerned, it is the proviso to
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097658
Civil Revision No. 4272 of 2023 2023:PHHC: 097658
Order 8 Rule 1 CPC which applies. The Hon'ble Apex Court further
observed that in Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India
(2005) 6 SCC 344 the Court held that the proviso to Rule 1 of Order 8 CPC
is directory and not mandatory and that the decision in SCG Contract's case
(supra) is by 2-Members Bench while the decision in Salem Advocate Bar
Association's case (supra) was rendered by 3-Members Bench and therefore
what is to be applied to normal Civil Courts is Order 8 Rule 1 and the
interpretation given to the same in Salem Advocate Bar Association's case
(supra). Consequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal and the
Commercial Court was directed to take on record the written statement filed
by the appellants and proceed with the hearing of the case on merits.
5. Prior to that even in Bharat Kalra Vs. Raj Kishan Chhabra,
2022(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 598, the Hon'ble Apex Court
condoned delay of 193 days in filing the written statement and allowed the
appeal with direction that the written statement already filed is to be taken
on record.
6. Further, it is settled law that the procedural laws are meant for
imparting substantial justice and should not be invoked to obstruct the
judicial proceedings simply on hyper-technical grounds.
7. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the instant
revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure
P-1) is set aside and written statement already filed by the petitioners is
directed to be taken on record and trial Court should proceed further with the
hearing of the suit on merits.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097658
Civil Revision No. 4272 of 2023 2023:PHHC: 097658
8. Keeping in view the nature of order being passed, no notice is
required to be issued to the respondents. However, if they feel dis-satisfied with
this order, they may move an application to recall the same.
(KARAMJIT SINGH )
31.07.2023 JUDGE
Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097658
4 of 4
