Sukhjinder Singh vs Prem Singh And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 16062 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 16062 P&H
Judgement Date : 3 September, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhjinder Singh vs Prem Singh And Anr on 3 September, 2024

                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114927




CR-4921-2024 (O&M)                          1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

      138                                             CR-4921-2024 (O&M)
                                                      Decided on: 03.09.2024

      Sukhjinder Singh

                                                             ...Petitioner

                                         Versus

      Prem Singh and another
                                                             ...Respondents


      CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RITU TAGORE

      Present:       Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate
                     for the petitioner.
                                  ****

RITU TAGORE, TAGORE J.

1. Challenge in this revision petition petition,, filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure P P-3),,

petitioner defendant No.1, has been struck off by the whereby defence of the petitioner-defendant

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, in a Civil Suit bearing

No.1487-2019 2019 captioned as 'Prem Singh Vs. Sukhjinder Singh and another'.

2. Considering the limited prayer made in this revision and the

nature of the order, which is being passed herein below below, this Court deems it

unnecessary to issue notices to respondentss and dispense dispenses with, at this stage.

3. Learned counsel submits that although there has been a delay in

filing the written statement within the prescribed period, however, same was

not intentional on the part of the petitioner petitioner-defendant No.1. Since ince the

petitioner-defendant defendant No.1 had gone abroad and his mother in whose favour

he had executed a general power of attorney also could not contact the

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114927

counsel well in time being an old lady, lad led to non non-filing filing of the written

statement within the statutory period. It is submitted that the order of striking

of defence is unduly harsh as it precludes the petitioner-defendant defendant No.1

from filing his written statement and from adequately defending his case..

Learned counsel states that the written statement is ready and undertakes to

file it on the date of hearing fixed before the learned trial Court on

20.09.2024 if afforded an opportunity.

4. A perusal of the record shows hows that the petitioner petitioner-defendant defendant

No.1 was granted five opportunitiess to file the written statement. H However, owever,

he did not avail himself of these opportunities opportunities. On this account, this Court

does not find any impropriety i propriety with the order passed by the Court below as

such. But itt is a trite law that rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice.

In an adversarial system, no party should ordinary be denied the opportunity

of participating in the process of justice dispensation. In Bharat Kalra Vs.

Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 (3) Apex Court Judgements (SC) 598 Hon'ble

the Supreme Court observed as under: -

"3. Admittedly, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015. Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written statement ement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as 'Kailash v. Nankhu and others', (2005) 4 SCC 480.

4. In view of aforesaid judgment, we find that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable.

5. Consequently, we allow the present appeal. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The written statement already filed is taken on record.''

5. Further, the rights of the parties should be adjudicated on the

merits of the controversy, rather than being thwarted by rigid technicalities.

Additionally,, the learned counsel sel on behalf of the petitioner petitioner-defendant defendant No.1

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114927

undertakes to file the written statement in one effective opportunity opportunity..

Furthermore, it is also an established practice of law that the delay can

always be rectified by imposing costs.

6. As such, in these circumstances to do complete justice between

the parties, I believe that one effective opportunity be granted to the

petitioner-defendant defendant No.1 to file his written statement before the learned trial

Court enabling him to put forth his stand before the learned Court to the