Het Ram vs Jaipal And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 5781 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Het Ram vs Jaipal And Others on 14 March, 2024

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                                                                                    2024:PHHC:037256

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                        128                                           CR No.974 of 2024
                                                                      Date of Decision : 14.03.2024


                        Het Ram                                                           ....Petitioner

                                                          VERSUS

                        Jaipal and Others                                              ....Respondents


                        CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN


                        Present :    Mr. Anupal Singh Tanwar, Advocate for
                                     Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                     Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for respondent No.1.


                        ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Article

227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.10.2023 vide

which the defense of the defendant No.17-petitioner was struck off due to

non-filing of the written statement.

2. Learned counsel for the defendant No.17-petitioner would

contend that given one opportunity the defendant No.17-petitioner would

file his written statement on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.03.2024. It is

further the contention that the defendant No.17-petitioner is willing to

compensate the plaintiff-respondent No.1 by way of costs.

3. Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has

contended that the defendant No.17-petitioner had even failed to deposit the

costs of Rs.250/- and that he is intentionally delaying the proceedings.

integrity of this order/judgment

CR No.974 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:037256

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj vs. Balkishan

(D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] has held

as under :

"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

integrity of this order/judgment

CR No.974 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:037256

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;

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.

integrity of this order/judgment

CR No.974 of 2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:037256

14. As regard the timeline 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. In view of the fact that provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been held to be directory in nature and

not mandatory, this Court deems it appropriate to give one opportunity to the

defendant No.17-petitioner to file his written statement subject to payment

of Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It is made

clear that the payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for filing the

written statement. The written statement be filed on or before the next date

of hearing before the Trial Court.

7. The revision petition is disposed off in the above terms.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

( ALKA SARIN ) 14.03.2024 JUDGE jk

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

integrity of this order/judgment