AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 396 wordsL.N. Mittal, J.
C.M. No. 6240-C-II of 2012
Allowed as prayed for
Main Case
Defendant No. 3 Partap Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 14.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, thereby striking off the defence of defendant No. 3-petitioner for non-filing of the written statement.
I have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for filing his written statement.
I have carefully considered the matter.
Defendant No. 3 put in appearance through counsel in the trial court on 19.04.2011, but did not file written statement till 14.12.2011 i.e. for almost eight months, when the impugned order was passed. According to Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, written statement is required to be filed within 30 days of the service of summons on the defendant and the said period can be extended up to maximum of 90 days. However, this provision being of procedural law, is required to be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. In addition to it, in the instant case, service of defendants No. 1 and 2 is still not complete. Suit has still been adjourned to 25.04.2012 for service of defendants No. 1 and 2.
In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner is allowed, on payment of some cost. Progress of the suit has not been delayed on account of non-filing of written statement by defendant No. 3-petitioner because defendants No. 1 and 2 are yet to be served.
I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to respondent No. 1-plaintiff so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save respondent No. 1-plaintiff of the expenses she may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice thereof is issued to her.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and trial court is directed to permit defendant No. 3-petitioner to file his written statement on or before 25.04.2012 - the next date of hearing in the suit, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/-as cost precedent.