Punjab-Haryana High Court
Seema Devi vs Sita Ram And Anr on 4 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143161
122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-4448-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 04.11.2024
Seema Devi ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sita Ram & Anr ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Bhan Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.1.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the
impugned order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-2) whereby the defense of
the defendant No.1-petitioner has been struck off for not filing her written
statement.
2. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1-petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj
Vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil)
807] to contend that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 have been held to be directory in nature in the case of non-
commercial suits. The learned counsel would further contend that a FIR had
been lodged against the defendant No.1-petitioner by the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 herein and since she was seeking anticipatory bail in the
said FIR, hence, the written statement could not be filed. The learned
counsel would further contend that given one opportunity the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143161
CR-4448-2024 (O&M) -2-
defendant No.1-petitioner would file her written statement and that she is
also willing to compensate plaintiff-respondent No.1 by way of costs.
3. Per contra the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1
would contend that despite 90 days having elapsed, the written statement
was not filed by the defendant No.1-petitioner and hence her defense has
rightly been struck off. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that
sufficient time has already been granted to the defendant-No.1-petitioner to
file her written statement and that she is only trying to delay the matter.
4. Heard.
5. In the present case, since the defendant No.1-petitioner was
seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR lodged against her by the plaintiff-
respondent No.1, the written statement could not be filed and her defense
was struck off vide the impugned order. The learned counsel for the
defendant No.1-petitioner has stated that given one opportunity, the
defendant No.1-petitioner would file her written statement.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj (supra)
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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143161
CR-4448-2024 (O&M) -3-
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
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.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143161
CR-4448-2024 (O&M) -4-
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. In view of the above and keeping in view the fact that the
provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC have been held to be directory in
nature in the case of non-commercial suits and in order to impart complete
justice, one opportunity is granted to the defendant No.1-petitioner to file
her written statement within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of
this order, subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid to the
plaintiff-respondent No.1, which shall be a condition precedent.
8. Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
04.11.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
