Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhvir Singh vs Gulzar Singh on 15 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
CR No.711 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:050502
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
124 CR No.711 of 2024
Date of Decision : 15.04.2024
Sukhvir Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Gulzar Singh ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Hasrat Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the impugned
order dated 08.11.2023 whereby the defense of the defendant-petitioner has
been struck off due to non-filing of the written statement despite a period of
90 days having been elapsed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that given one
opportunity the defendant-petitioner would file his written statement and that
he is willing to compensate the plaintiff-respondent by way of costs. In
support of his argument he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) through
proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] to contend that the
provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have
been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory in the case of non-
commercial suits.
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.711 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:050502
3. Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has
contended that the defendant-petitioner is only trying to delay the matter by
not filing the written statement despite opportunities having been given to
the petitioner to file the written statement.
4. Heard.
5. In the case of Desh Raj (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under :
"ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
11. At the outset, it must be noted that the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 through Section 16 has amended the
CPC in its application to commercial disputes to
provide as follows:
"16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 in its application to commercial disputes - (1)
The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any
suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a
Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as
specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial
Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by
this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a
commercial dispute of a specified value.
(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the
jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.711 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:050502
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the State
Government is in conflict with the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as
amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall
prevail."
12. Hence, it is clear that post coming into force of the
aforesaid Act, there are two regimes of civil procedure.
Whereas commercial disputes [as defined under Section
2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015] are governed
by the CPC as amended by Section 16 of the said Act;
all other noncommercial disputes fall within the ambit of
the unamended (or original) provisions of CPC.
13. The judgment of Oku Tech (supra) relied upon the
learned Single Judge is no doubt good law, as recently
upheld by this Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v.
KS Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2019 SC
2691, but its ratio concerning the mandatory nature of
the timeline prescribed for filing of written statement
and the lack of discretion with Courts to condone any
delay is applicable only to commercial disputes, as the
judgment was undoubtedly rendered in the context of a
commercial dispute qua the amended Order VIII Rule 1
CPC.
14. As regard the timeline for filing of written
statement in a non-commercial dispute, the observations
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.711 of 2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:050502
of this Court in a catena of decisions, most recently in
Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co.,
(2018) 6 SCC 639 holds the field. Unamended Order
VIII Rule I, CPC continues to be directory and does not
do away with the inherent discretion of Courts to
condone certain delays."
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has stated that
given one opportunity the defendant-petitioner would file his written
statement on or before the next date of haring i.e. 29.05.2024.
7. In view of the fact that provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
have been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory in the case of
non-commercial suits, this Court deems it appropriate to give one
opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to file his written statement subject to
payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent. It is
made clear that the payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for filing
the written statement. The written statement be filed on or before the next
date of hearing before the Trial Court.
8. The revision petition is disposed off in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
15.04.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
