Bijender @ Vijender Singh And ORS v. Pavitra And ORS

2023:PHHC:069030 CR-2934-2023 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-2934-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: May 12, 2023 Bijender @ Vijender Singh and others ....Petitioners versus Smt. Pavitra and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present:- Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate for petitioners. ***** ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) Petition herein inter alia is for setting aside impugned order dated 20.03.2023passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kosli whereby defence of petitioner/ defendants was ordered to be struck off. 2.

The revision petition is premised on the averments that plaintiffrespondent No.1 filed suit for declaration, possession by way of partition and permanent injunction in respect of land in question against defendants. Vide impugned order dated 20.03.2023, defence of petitioners was struck off. 3.

Learned counsel for petitioner-defendants submits that defendants could not attend the Court below on 20.03.2023 due to family function and it was a bona fide mistake on the part of their counsel that they could not file reply on the aforesaid date. He would submit that in case, petitioners are not allowed to file written statement, then they will suffer an irreparable loss. 4.

Considering the nature, facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of notice to respondent No.1-plaintiff seems unnecessary and is, therefore, dispensed with.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and perused the case file. MAHAVIR SINGH 2023.05.23 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment -1-

2023:PHHC:069030 CR-2934-2023 (O&M) 6.

Provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC though ought to be adhered to but learned Court below could have still permitted petitioners to file written statement, subject to certain penalty as a deterrent. Otherwise also, provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 1 ibid have been held to be directory in nature by the Supreme Court in Salem Bar Association Vs. UOI, 2005(6) SCC

344. The Court should not, therefore, be too harsh to disallow filing of written statement.

7.

Trite law it is that procedure is a handmaid of justice and, ought not be given precedence at the cost of subjugation of substantive justice. Prejudice would indeed be caused to revisionists unless afforded an opportunity to file written statement.

8.

Consequently, revisionists are granted one opportunity to file written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to respondent No.1plaintiff. Revision stands allowed and impugned order is modified accordingly. 9.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ARUN MONGA) JUDGE May 12, 2023 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2023.05.23 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment -2-