Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harshanjit Singh (Since Deceased) ... vs Satpal on 22 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:042056
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
113 CR-1616-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 22.03.2024
HARSHANJIT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LRS .... Petitioners
VERSUS
SATPAL .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate, for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate has appeared and has filed his
vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent. The same is taken on record.
2. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated
04.03.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Ferozepur whereby the defence of the defendant-petitioners was
struck off for non-filing of the written statement.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners has contended
that given one opportunity the defendant-petitioners would file their written
statement and that the defendant-petitioners are also willing to compensate
the plaintiff-respondent by way of costs.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent would
contend that sufficient opportunities were granted to the defendant-
petitioners, however, they failed to file their written statement despite a
integrity of this judgment/order.
113 CR-1616-2024 (O&M) -2-
period of 90 days having elapsed and hence their defence was rightly struck
off.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case the prayer made by the defendant-petitioners
is that they may be permitted to file written statement as their defence has
been struck off vide order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-5). The 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
integrity of this judgment/order.
113 CR-1616-2024 (O&M) -3-
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;
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
integrity of this judgment/order.
113 CR-1616-2024 (O&M) -4-
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."
7. Since the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC have been held to be
directory in nature and not mandatory in the case of non-commercial suit, this
Court deems it fit to grant one opportunity to the defendant-petitioners to file
their written statement on or before the date fixed before the Trial Court i.e.
28.03.2024 subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid to the
plaintiff-respondent. The payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for
filing of the written statement. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners
has assured this Court that the counsel representing the defendant-petitioners
before the Court below would not take any unnecessary adjournments.
8. Petition stands disposed off in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
22.03.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this judgment/order.
