High CourtsSingle Bench

Raj Kumar vs Paramjit Kaur and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 10 September 2013 · Citation: (2013) 09 P&H CK 0273

HON’BLE JUDGES
L.N. Mittal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 8 Rule 1 · Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 1322 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

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

7 paragraphs · 376 words

L.N. Mittal, J.—Aggrieved by orders dated 19.7.2008 Annexure P/1 and 10.1.2013 Annexure P/2 passed by the trial court, defendant No. 1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said orders. Vide order Annexure P/1, defence of defendants (petitioner and respondent No. 2) was struck off due to non-filing of written statement within stipulated period of 90 days. Vide order Annexure P/2, application filed by the defendant-petitioner for recalling order Annexure P/1 has been dismissed.

2.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to file written statement.

4.

The prayer has been opposed by counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff.

5.

I have carefully considered the matter. The petitioner appeared in the trial court on 19.4.2008 but did not file written statement till 19.7.2008 i.e. till expiry of maximum period of 90 days stipulated in Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC (in short, CPC) for filing of written statement. Application Annexure P/4 for recalling said order is dated 3.12.2008. Unfortunately, the said application remained pending for more than four years in the trial court resulting in further delay in disposal of the suit. However, even application Annexure P/4 was filed belatedly and not immediately after passing of order Annexure P/1.

6.

Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that to meet the ends of justice, another opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for filing written statement on payment of very heavy costs. Delay on the part of the petitioner in filing written statement has resulted in delay of five years in the progress of the suit.

7.

Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 passed by the trial court are set aside and the petitioner is permitted to file written statement in the trial court subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost precedent. Written statement in the trial court shall be filed on or before the next date of hearing and no further opportunity shall be granted for this purpose. Civil miscellaneous application, if any pending, is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.