Smt. Heena Seth and Another vs ICICI Bank Ltd.

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 4989-CII of 2012

Cost amount stands deposited.

Revision Petition stands restored.

Main Case

On request of counsel for the petitioners, revision petition has been taken up for hearing today itself. Defendants Smt. Heena Seth and her husband Shri Sanjay Seth have filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 10.02.2011 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala thereby dismissing application of petitioners for setting aside order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the trial Court whereby defence of the defendants/petitioners was struck off due to non-filing of written statement.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners prayed that defendants/petitioners could not file written statement due to negligence and only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioners for filing written statement, subject to payment of cost.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer but find myself unable to accept the same. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the defendants did not file written statement on three consecutive dates of hearing i.e. 26.08.2006, 15.09.2006 and 11.10.2006. Thereupon defence of the defendants was struck off. Thereafter, plaintiff''s evidence was recorded. Plaintiff''s witnesses were examined and cross-examined. On 19.11.2008 defendants moved application for setting aside order dated 11.10.2006 whereby their defence had been struck off. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

Perusal of the aforesaid sequence of events reveals that the defendants not only initially failed to file written statement with promptness but also thereafter committed gross default. Their defence had been struck off on 11.10.2006, but they moved application for setting aside the said order after more than two years one month. There is no explanation for the same. To wriggle out of this situation, the defendants came out with a totally false plea that they had actually filed the written statement in the Court but the same was not taken on record by the Court. It was also alleged that the written statement has either been misplaced or it has escaped notice of the Court. Such plea taken by defendants to cover up their own fault and gross lapse, cannot be accepted when specific order was passed in the presence of counsel for defendants on 11.10.2006 striking off their defence for non-filing of written statement and thereafter the proceedings continued on the same basis for more than two years. Thus not only the defendants are guilty of grave lapse and default but also they falsely tried to put the blame for the same on the Court. Such conduct of the defendants is strongly deprecated. Their application for setting aside order dated 11.10.2006 has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court as there was no ground, much less sufficient ground, for setting aside the said order.

In addition to the aforesaid, even the instant revision petition was filed after about ten months of the passing of the impugned order by the trial Court. Thus the revision petition is also barred by delay and laches. It rather shows intentional and mala fide conduct of the defendants in filing application in the trial Court after more than two years and then in filing the instant revision petition after about ten months of the impugned order. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. On the contrary, the revision petition is frivolous. Impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.