Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalip Kumar vs M/S Hazur Singh And Grandsons And Others on 19 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052783
CR-2321-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:052783
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
118 CR-2321-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision:19.04.2024
Dalip Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
M/s Hazur Singh & Grandsons & others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
Present: Ms. Bandana Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner.
...
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by
petitioner/defendants against the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Civil
Judge (Jr. Division - 14), Jalandhar, vide which the defence of the
petitioner/defendants was struck off.
2. Brief facts of the case for adjudication of the present revision
petition are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.2,13,019/- (principle amount Rs.1,00,011/- plus interest of Rs.82,005/- @
24% P.A. w.e.f. 09.01.2019 to 03.02.2021 on amount Rs.1,65,111/- and
Rs.31,003/- @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 11.02.2021 to 27.05.2022 on an
amount of Rs.1,00,011/-, total interest of Rs.1,13,008/-) along with pendent
lite along with future interest till realization of the amount.
3. During the pendency of the suit, effective opportunities were
provided to the defendant for filing of the written statement but he failed to
file any written statement. Then the trial Court vide the impugned order
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052783
CR-2321-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:052783
dated 10.02.2023 struck off the defence of the defendant (petitioner herein).
Hence, the petitioner/defendant has knocked the doors of this Court by way
of filing of the present revision petition.
4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner has got information of his case only just before the last date of
hearing and counsel for the petitioner had not informed him earlier regarding
the status of the case and only due to this reason, the petitioner could not
earlier file his written statement. He has submitted that in the interest of
justice, one effective opportunity may be provided to the petitioner for filing
of his written statement.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and
have perused the pleadings on record.
6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that
defendant appeared in the case on 30.09.2022 and since then the case is
pending for filing of the written statement. It has been mentioned in the
impugned order that despite availing number of opportunities, the defendant
failed to file his written statement. Even the statutory period of 90 days for
filing of the written statement has also elapsed. It has been held in a catena
of judgments that Proviso to Rule 1(8) CPC is directory and not mandatory
in nature and in the justified circumstances, the time limit provided under
statute for filing of the written statement in civil proceedings can be
extended by the Court. Moreover, hyper technical approach is not to be
adopted by the Court as procedural laws are meant for imparting substantial
justice and not to obstruct the judicial proceedings. So, in the instant case
also, though there is no infirmity in the impugned order, yet it will be
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052783
CR-2321-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:052783
appropriate, if in the interest of justice, one effective opportunity is given to
the petitioner to file his written statement to defend his case. The other party
can be well compensated with costs. Therefore the trial Court is directed to
grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement
subject to payment of costs of Rs.8000/- to be paid to the respondents.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) is set
aside and the revision petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( SUKHVINDER KAUR )
JUDGE
19.04.2024
harjeet
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
