Punjab-Haryana High Court
General Manager Cum Mining Officer, ... vs Jaswant Singh And Others on 22 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054196
CR-2296-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:054196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
128 CR-2296-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision:22.04.2024
General Manager-cum-mining Officer, District Industries Centre, Ferozepur,
Punjab
... Petitioner
Vs.
Jaswant Singh & others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
Present: Ms. Rishu Madan, AAG, Punjab for the petitioner.
...
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by
petitioner/defendant against the order dated 15.03.2023 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ferozepur, vide which
the defence of the petitioner/defendant was struck off.
2. Brief facts of the case for adjudication of the present revision
petition are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for decree of
declaration that plaintiff is not liable to pay any type of penalties/fine as
alleged in the notices/memos sent to him by defendants No.1 & 2 and the
same are illegal, null and void, inoperative and ineffective on the rights of
the plaintiff and permanent injunction was also sought from recovering
any amount on the basis of the aforesaid notices/memos.
3. Upon issuing notice, summons in the suit were received in the
office of the petitioner on 14.12.2022 and on receipt of such summons,
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054196
CR-2296-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:054196
the petitioner applied before the office of the Chief Engineer for
providing of counsel on government expenses or directing the public
prosecutor to defend the case. Thereafter vide letter No.232/2 legal
Cell/2023 dated 24.01.2023 forwarded the said letter to the office of
Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Additional Secretary, Punjab
Government. In response to the said letter, the Director, Prosecution and
Litigation, Additional Secretary, Punjab directed the District Attorney,
Ferozepur to defend the case on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner
failed to file his written statement in the absence of government sanction
to defend the case. On 15.03.2023, the trial Court vide the impugned
order struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant No.1. Hence, the
petitioner/defendant No.1 has knocked the doors of this Court by way of
filing of the present revision petition.
4. Learned state counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has contended that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact
that as per the rules, the petitioner, being government department, was
required to obtain necessary permission to get engaged the public
prosecutor to defend the case. She has further contended that while
passing the impugned order, the trial Court had observed that period of 90
days has already expired and sufficient opportunities have already been
granted to the petitioner but the trial Court had not considered the fact that
the sanction of the government to defend the case had not been received.
Therefore, in the absence of any sanction from the Government, it was
not possible for the petitioner to file the written statement. She has argued
that mandatory period of 90 days for filing of written statement has not
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054196
CR-2296-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:054196
been afforded to the petitioner from the date of sanction given by the
government i.e. 11.04.2023 for filing of written statement, but the trial
Court by ignoring this vital aspect has passed the impugned order. She
has submitted that non-filing of the written statement was neither willful
nor intentional but the same was due to the procedural technicalities. She
has submitted that in the interest of justice, one effective opportunity may
be provided to the petitioner for filing of written statement to the plaint as
well as reply to the stay application.
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
despite availing sufficient 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.
7. 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 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054196
CR-2296-2024 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:054196
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 15.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) is set
aside and the revision petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( SUKHVINDER KAUR )
JUDGE
22.04.2024
harjeet
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
