Budh Ram Etc. v. Ram Kanwar

C.R. No.5020 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5020 of 2016 Date of Decision.08.08.2016 Budh Ram and others .......Petitioners Vs.

Ram Kanwar ........Respondent

Present:

Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The petitioners-defendants are aggrieved of the impugned order whereby the defence of the defendants has been struck off on account of the fact that written statement had not been filed within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of service of summons.

Mr. Surender Saini, learned counsel for the petitionersdefendants submits that the Courts should be liberal while interpreting the aforementioned provisions of Civil Procedure Code and should not be too harsh to strike off the defence of the defendants at very early stage. The counsel for the petitioners-defendants undertakes to file the written statement at the next adjourned date, subject to terms and conditions. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, appraised the paper book and of the view that as per the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment of Supreme Court in Salem Bar Association Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India 2005(6) SCC 344, the time period of 90 days for filing the PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.08.10 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.5020 of 2016 -2written statement as stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory in nature. The aforementioned view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Vs. Nanku 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 379. For the foregoing reasons, I deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioners-defendants for filing the written statement at the next adjourned date before the Court below, subject to payment of costs of `5000/- which shall be condition precedent. If the costs is not paid as directed, the order passed already by the court below shall stand restored.

The impugned order is set aside and the revision petition is allowed, dispensing with notice to the respondents. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 08, 2016 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.08.10 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document