Inder Dev Sharma vs Punjab State

G.C. Mital, J.(Oral)

This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1003 and 1021 of 1986 as common question of law arises therein.

The plaintiff had filed a suit against the State of Punjab. In spite of putting in appearance, the Government Pleader sought large number of opportunities to file the written statement which extended beyond two months from his first appearance before the trial Court. In Civil Revision No. 1003 of 1986 last adjournment was granted by the trial Court on 3rd January, 1986, for filing the written statement on 10th January, 1986. Till 3rd January, 1986, the plaintiff or his counsel did not object to the grant of adjournment and it was on 4th January, 1986 that an application was filed for striking off the defence. On 10th January, 1986 written statement was filed and hence it is a clear case that the plaintiff waived the objections. In Civil Revision No. 1021 of 1986, 17th February, 1986 was the last date for filing the written statement and on that date the written statement was filed. The plaintiff took objection in writing on 17.2.1986 and since the written statement was filed on that day the objection was overruled.

Accordingly in both the Revision Petitions the plaintiffs waived their right to strike off the defence of the State.

A reading of the order of the Court below shows that it did not correctly understand the scope of Order 27 Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code and failed to notice the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Amrit Lal Behal v. Punjab State, 1986 PLJ 327 : 1986 RRR 610. The trial Court should read that judgment and bear in mind the same for future guidance.

The plaintiff''s counsel should have objected to the fixation of the date beyond two months but when the case was being adjourned from time to time no objection was raised. Hence waiver is clearly proved. However, since the State of Punjab filed the written statement much beyond the period prescribed by law which is a mandatory provision, the Court below should have imposed costs while taking the written statement or granting the adjournment. The imposition of costs has become necessary so that the Government and its Pleader take notice of the provisions of Order 27 Rule 5 and the decision of this Court in the larger interest of the State and the public fund which is to be controlled and utilized by the State for the benefit of the Society. Any default on the part of the Government or its Pleader can seriously affect the interest of the State and ultimately the public fund. The State Government would be well advised in making a note of it and in giving timely instructions to Government Pleaders.

For the reasons recorded above, the written statements filed by the State in these revisions are allowed to be placed on record on payment of Rs. 500/ as conditional costs in each case. Cheque/Pay Order should be sent or handed over to the plaintiffs within two months from today failing which it shall be deemed that the written statements were not allowed to be placed on the record and the defence was struck off.