Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raminder Sharma vs Tanu Anand on 22 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:054117
123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1177-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 22.04.2024
Raminder Sharma ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Tanu Anand ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the
impugned order dated 24.01.2024 whereby the defense of the defendant-
petitioner has been struck off due to non-filing of the written statement
within a period of 90 days.
2. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner 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 in the case of non-
commercial suits. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that an
application had been filed for production of certain documents and on the
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:054117
CR-1177-2024 (O&M) -2-
same day the application for striking off the defense was also filed. The
learned counsel would further contend that the defendant-petitioner may be
granted one opportunity to file his written statement and that he is also
willing to compensate the plaintiff-respondent by payment of costs.
3. Per contra the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent
would contend that despite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the written
statement was not filed by the defendant-petitioner and hence his defense
has rightly been struck off.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. In the present case the defendant-petitioner had put in
appearance on 08.08.2023 and thereafter had filed an application for
production of documents under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC on 03.10.2023. The
said documents were produced on 18.11.2023 and on the same date an
application was filed for striking off the defense. Instead of filing his written
statement, the defendant-petitioner chose to contest the said application by
filing his reply. Infact, on 08.12.2023 the case was adjourned to 24.01.2024
only for filing of a reply to the application. There is no reason forthcoming
for not filing the reply despite the documents having been produced. The
defense of the defendant-petitioner was struck off for not having filed the
written statement within the statutory period of 90 days.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj (supra)
has held as under :
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:054117
CR-1177-2024 (O&M) -3-
"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
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;
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:054117
CR-1177-2024 (O&M) -4-
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 time-line for filing of written
statement in a non commercial dispute, the observations
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. Though it has been held that the period of 90 days is not
mandatory and is only directory in nature in the case of non-commercial
suits, however, the defendant-petitioner did delay the filing of the written
statement for which no explanation is forthcoming. Though the documents
were produced on 18.11.2013, instead of filing his written statement, the
defendant-petitioner chose to contest the said application and eventually his
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:054117
CR-1177-2024 (O&M) -5-
defense was struck off on 24.01.2024. Even on that date no effort was made
by the defendant-petitioner to file his written statement. However, keeping
in view the fact that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC have been held
to be directory in nature in the case of non-commercial suits and in order to
impart complete justice, one opportunity is granted 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, which shall be a condition
precedent.
7. Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
22.04.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
