Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bishambar Dayal vs Ashish Manjhu on 22 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053796
CR-2330-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:053796
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
131 CR-2330-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision:22.04.2024
Bishambar Dayal ... Petitioner
Vs.
Ashish Manjhu ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
Present: Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
...
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by
petitioner/defendants against the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the
Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division-cum-SDJM, Ratia, 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 filed a suit for possession by way
of specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated
05.03.2021, registered vide No.3431 dated 05.03.2021 read with
amendment agreement to sell dated 16.03.2021, registered vide No.3538
dated 17.03.2021 before the Sub Registrar, Ratia, District Fatehabad
executed by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff
qua the building constructed over the plot measuring 1 kanal comprised in
Khewat No.766, Khatauni No.951, Khasra No.292//5/1/1 (1-0) situated in
Ratia, District Fatehabad.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053796
CR-2330-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:053796
3. Upon issuing notice in the aforesaid suit, defendant
approached his counsel, who appeared on 25.05.2022 and the matter was
adjourned to 03.08.2022 for filing of written statement and power of
attorney. Thereafter on 03.08.2022, learned counsel for the defendant
sought adjournment for filing of written statement and the matter was
again adjourned to 07.09.2022 and further for 02.11.2022. Matter was
again got adjourned various times and on 28.07.2023 adjournment was
granted to file written statement subject to costs and then adjourned to
29.08.2023. On that date case was not taken up and it was adjourned to
03.10.2023 on which date last opportunity was granted to the
petitioner/defendant to file his written statement and by imposing a
further cost of Rs.1300/- to be deposited in SDLSA, Ratia and then the
matter was got adjourned to 26.10.2023. On 26.10.2023, the trial Court
vide the impugned order struck off the defence of the
petitioner/defendant, when he failed to file the written statement. Hence,
the petitioner/defendant has knocked the doors of this Court by way of
filing of the present revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
plaintiff has filed the instant suit only with the motive to grab the property
of the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of pendency of the
proceedings before the trial Court as his counsel never apprised him about
the same. He has argued that due to his health issues, the petitioner could
not appear before the trial Court for filing his written statement. The non-
filing of the written statement was neither willful nor intentional but the
same was only due to his medical condition. In support of his contentions,
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053796
CR-2330-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:053796
he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of
Punjab Vs. Shamlal Murari & others, 1976 SC 1177. 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 instant case on 25.05.2022 and since then the
case is pending for filing of the written statement. It has been specifically
mentioned in the impugned order that despite availing number of
opportunities, the defendant failed to file his written statement and even
the statutory period of 90 days for filing of the written statement had 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 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053796
CR-2330-2024 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:053796
to payment of costs of Rs.8000/- to be paid to the respondent.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.10.2023 (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
