Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Kanwar Preet Singh & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 02 Apr 2012
- Bench
- RAJESH BINDAL
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. VIII r. 1
Judgment
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate for Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal, J. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated
24.1.2012 passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non- filing of written statement by the petitioners, their defence was struck off. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit filed by respondents /plaintiffs against the petitioners for possession. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that notice of the suit was issued to the petitioners for 21.10.2011. Their counsel appeared before the court and filed his memo of appearance and the case was adjourned to 24.1.2012. On 24.1.2012, their counsel filed the power of attorney and prayed for time to file written statement, however, the learned court below struck off their defence. It was submitted that written statement could not be filed in time as instructions were not complete to prepare the same.
It was submitted that delay in filing the written statement was not intentional. It was further submitted that evidence of the plaintiffs is yet to start on 12.4.2012. The prayer is that order dated 24.1.2012 striking off Civil Revision No. 2068 of 2012 -2- defence of the petitioners be set aside and one opportunity be granted to file the written statement. He has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kailash vs Nanhku and others, JT 2005(4) SC 204; Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, JT 2005(6) SC 486 and M/s R. N. Jadi and Brothers and others v. Subhashchandra, JT 2007(9) SC 165 to submit that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I find merit in the contentions raised by him. It has been consistently opined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgments, referred to above, that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides time for filing of written statement is directory in nature in case sufficient cause is shown for its non- filing in time.
Operative part
Considering the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to file written statement. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to file written statement before the learned court below on 12.4.2012 with a copy in advance to counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs, subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as costs to the respondents/plaintiffs by way of demand draft. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
2.4.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VIII r. 1.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 02 Apr 2012. The bench was RAJESH BINDAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.