Vinod Kumar And Another v. Union Bank Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 11.09.2024 Vinod Kumar & Anr.
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Bank of India ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. Umesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Tejinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for the respondent. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1.
The present revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) whereby the defence of the defendantpetitioners has been struck off for non-filing of the written statement despite the period of 90 days having elapsed.
2.
Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] to contend that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been held to be directory in nature in the case of noncommercial suits. The learned counsel would further contend that given one opportunity, the defendant-petitioners would file their written statement on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court i.e. 18.09.2024. 3.
Notice of motion.
4.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Tejinder Singh, Advocate appearing for Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the
-2respondent-Bank and waives service. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that sufficient opportunities have already been granted and despite that the written statement was not filed by the defendant-petitioners and hence their defence has rightly been struck off. 5.
Heard.
6.
In the present case the defence of the defendant-petitioners has been struck off due to non-filing of the written statement despite 90 days having elapsed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj (supra) has held as under :
"ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
11. At the outset, it must be noted that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 through Section 16 has amended the CPC in its application to commercial disputes to provide as follows:
"16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes.-
(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value.
(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the
-3Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail."
12. Hence, it is clear that post coming into force of the aforesaid Act, there are two regimes of civil procedure. Whereas commercial disputes [as defined under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015] are governed by the CPC as amended by Section 16 of the said Act; all other noncommercial disputes fall within the ambit of the unamended (or original) provisions of CPC.
13. The judgment of Oku Tech (supra) relied upon the learned Single Judge is no doubt good law, as recently upheld by this Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. KS Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2019 SC 2691, but its ratio concerning the mandatory nature of the timeline prescribed for filing of written statement and the lack of discretion with Courts to condone any delay is applicable only to commercial disputes, as the judgment was undoubtedly rendered in the context of a commercial dispute qua the amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
14. As regard the time-line for filing of written statement in a non commercial dispute, the observations of this Court in a catena of decisions, most recently in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co., (2018) 6 SCC 639 holds the field. Unamended Order VIII Rule I, CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of Courts to condone certain delays."
7.
In view of the above and keeping in view the fact that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC have been held to be directory in
-4nature in the case of non-commercial suits and in order to impart complete justice, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the defendant-petitioners to file their written statement on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court i.e. 18.09.2024, subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Hoshiarpur, which shall be a condition precedent. 8.
Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
11.09.2024 ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO