Gurjeet Singh vs Harkamalpreet Kaur
2023 Latest Caselaw 16320 P&H

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:123663



                                                                                  1
Civil Revision No. 5109 of 2023                                          2023:PHHC: 123663

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                CHANDIGARH

                           Civil Revision No. 5109 of 2023(O&M)
                           Date of Decision: 20.09.2023

Gurjeet Singh
                                                                     ...Petitioner
Versus

Harkamalpreet Kaur
                                                                  ...Respondent

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

Present:-    Mr. Maninder Singh Saini, Advocate
             For the petitioner.
                   ***

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

Gurjeet Singh against the order dated 17.03.2023 (Annexure P-4) and order

dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Court of Principal Judge,

Family Court, Ludhiana, camp Court Khanna whereby the defence of the

petitioner has been struck off and the request made by the petitioner to recall

the said order (Annexure P-4) has also been declined by the aforesaid Court.

2. The counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that

matrimonial dispute is going on between the parties and respondent

Harkamalpreet Kaur has filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC for

instituting the suit as an indigent person for recovery of arrears of

maintenance amounting to Rs.14,40,000/- for the period from September,

2018 till date and for grant of future maintenance @ Rs.40,000/- per month

by creating charge on the immoveable property of the petitioner fully

detailed in the said application. The counsel for the petitioner further

submits that on receipt of notice the petitioner put in appearance and moved

an application to direct the respondent to produce the original documents on

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:123663

Civil Revision No. 5109 of 2023 2023:PHHC: 123663

record and the said application was declined by the Family Court concerned

vide order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P-3). It is further submitted by

counsel for the petitioner that as per his instructions, till date no formal order

has been passed by the Court below to permit the respondent to file the suit

as an indigent person and in the given circumstances there was no occasion

for the learned trial Court to struck off the defence of the petitioner. The

counsel for the petitioner further submits that the written reply/ written

statement is ready and in case one opportunity is given to the petitioner, the

same will be filed on the next date of hearing in the learned trial Court. The

counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case is at its initial stage

and if permission is given to the petitioner to file the written statement/

reply, no prejudice is caused to the respondent. So prayer is made that the

present petition be allowed and one opportunity be granted to the petitioner

to file reply/ written statement.

3. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

petitioner.

4. Proviso to Rule 1 Order 8 CPC is directory and not mandatory

in nature and the time limit provided under statute for filing the written

statement in civil proceedings could be extended by the Court. In Bharat

Kalra Vs. Raj Kishan Chhabra 2022(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC)

598, the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned delay of 193 days in filing of

written statement. Again the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Process

Equipments & Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Honest Derivatives Pvt.

Ltd. 2023(1) RCR(Civil) 511 has reiterated that the time limit provided

under statute for filing of a written statement is directory and not mandatory

in nature.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:123663

Civil Revision No. 5109 of 2023 2023:PHHC: 123663

5. Further in the present case it is not clear as to if the application

filed by the respondent under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC has been formally

allowed by the Family Court concerned with permission to sue as an

indigent person. In case no such formal order has been passed, then there

was no occasion for the Family Court concerned to struck off the defence of

the petitioner. Even if any such permission is already granted to the

respondent to sue as an indigent person, then also in the light of the case law

referred above, the impugned orders are not sustainable.

6. In the light of above discussion, the present petition is allowed

and impugned orders are set aside and one last opportunity is granted to the

petitioner to file reply/ written statement by the next date fixed in the trial

Court subject to costs of Rs.3000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to

the respondent at the time of filing of the written statement/ reply.

7. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this

petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party.

If respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, she will have to incur

huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the

respondent that if she feels dissatisfied with this order, she may move an

application to recall the same.

                                                      (KARAMJIT SINGH )
20.09.2023                                                JUDGE
Jiten
             Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
             Whether reportable : Yes/No




                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:123663

                                   3 of 3