Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navdeep Singh And Others vs Vinay Sethi And Others on 22 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054403
CR-2328-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:054403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
130 CR-2328-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision:22.04.2024
Navdeep Singh & another ... Petitioners
Vs.
Vinay Sethi & others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
Present: Mr. G.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioners.
...
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by
petitioners/defendant No.12 to 16 against the order dated 28.03.2024
(Annexure P-13) passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, SAS Nagar
Mohali, vide which the defence of the petitioners/defendants was struck
off.
2. Brief facts of the case for adjudication of the present revision
petition are that plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for
mandatory injunction directing the petitioners and proforma respondents
No.3 to 13 to execute sale documents i.e. agreement to sell, sale deed of 4
acres land along with other requisite documents in favour of the plaintiffs
i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 and to take further steps in compliance of
agreement/token money/sai dated 22.08.2020 for sale of immovable
property measuring 15 acres 5 kanals (as mentioned in the head note of
the plaint) situated at Village Naugiari, Tehsil Mohali, District SAS Nagar
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054403
CR-2328-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:054403
and a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 16
from alienating the suit property to anyone except the plaintiff, for
restraining defendants No.20 & 21 from granting any CLU or approval of
any kind to defendants No.1 to 19 and for restraining defendants from
doing any act, direct or indirect, malafidely to debar the plaintiff from
their legal rights.
3. Upon issuing notice, petitioners along with proforma
respondents No.6 and 7 appeared before the trial Court and filed their
written statement denying that they have entered into any agreement dated
22.08.2020 with the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 & 2 and they were free to
sell their property to anyone. Plaintiffs filed replication to the aforesaid
written statement alleging therein that the land had been sold to
respondents No.4 and 5. Respondents No.14 and 19 (defendants No.17
and 22 in civil suit) also filed their written statement and supported the
pleadings of respondents No.1 & 2 that agreement dated 22.08.2020 was
executed between plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2.
Petitioners/defendants No.15 and 16 filed an application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondents No.1 & 2
(plaintiffs) which was disposed of vide order dated 10.10.2022. Feeling
aggrieved of the same, the petitioners approached this Court by way of
filing a revision petition being CR-5855-2022 which is pending
adjudication before this Court. Thereafter, the petitioners also filed
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The
said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated
21.03.2023. Against the said order, the petitioners filed another revision
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054403
CR-2328-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:054403
petition being CR-2390-2023 which is also pending adjudication before
this Court. The plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 moved an application
for amendment of the plaint on 18.08.2023 in view of order dated
10.10.2022. The respective parties submitted their replies. The trial Court
vide order dated 29.11.2023 while allowing the amendment application
took the amended plaint on record. The proforma defendants No.3 to 8,
10, 18 and 19 have filed their respective amended written statements. In
the meantime, defendant No.3 had expired and his legal heirs were
brought on record. Various opportunities were granted for filing amended
written statements but the same were not filed. Thereafter on 27.03.2024,
amended written statement was filed on behalf few proforma
respondents/defendants and the case was adjourned to 28.03.2024 for
filing amended written statements on behalf of the remaining defendants.
On the said date, the amended written statement was not filed and the trial
Court vide the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 struck off the defence of
the defendants. Hence, the petitioners/defendant Nos.12 to 16 have
knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing of the present revision
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that due to
communication gap between the petitioners and their counsel, they could
not reach the Court premises in time to sign the written statement and the
same could not be filed. He has further contended that non-filing of the
written statement was neither willful nor intentional and one effective
opportunity may be provided to the petitioners for filing their written
statement.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054403
CR-2328-2024 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:054403
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and
have perused the pleadings on record.
6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that
despite availing sufficient opportunities, the defendants/petitioners failed
to file their amended written statement. 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 appropriate, if in the interest of justice, one effective opportunity
is granted to the petitioners to file their written statement to defend their
case. The other party can be well compensated with costs. Therefore, the
trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioners
to file their amended written statement subject to payment of costs of
Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondents. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 28.03.2024 (Annexure P-13) is set aside and the revision
petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
22.04.2024 ( SUKHVINDER KAUR )
harjeet JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
