Ritu Gupta & Anr. v. Ram Murti
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, the impugned
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 6 r. 17; O. 8 r. 1
Judgment
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. G.S. Gurna, Advocate for the Respondent. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) C.M. No.2066-CII of 2011 Allowed. Zimni Orders produced as Annexure P-3 to P-13 are taken on record. C.R. No.4056 of 2010 Defendants/petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the instant revision petition directed against the order dated 12.05.2010(P-2) passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Derra Bassi whereby their defence has has been struck off for non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated time prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. Civil Revision No.4056 of 2010(O&M) #2# Facts in brief may be noticed. Plaintiff/Respondent Ram Murti filed a suit for possession of 5 Biswas of land fully described in the title of the plaint(P-1) after demolishing the construction raised as agreed vide agreement to exchange dated 24.03.2009; with a further prayer of permanent injunction for raising any further construction or in the alternative seeking declaration to declare the agreement to exchange dated 24.03.2009 as null and void. Suit was filed on 15.01.2010 and it is stated that after service of summons defendants/petitioners put in their appearance on 10.02.2010. After their service, defendants/petitioners were given as many as 5 effective opportunities to file written statement and on their failure to do so, ultimately vide impugned order dated 12.5.2010 their defence was ordered to be struck off. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on
17.03.2010 the Counsel for the petitioners-defendants filed an application for appointment of local commissioner and reply to the same was ordered to be filed on the date already fixed i.e. 07.04.2010. On 07.04.2010 reply to the application for appointment of local commissioner was not filed and the case was adjourned to 12.05.2010 for filing said reply as well as written statement subject to payment of Rs.200/- as costs and it was treated to be as last opportunity. It is submitted that for the purpose of filing written statement the petitioners kept on waiting for report of local commissioner and as such could not file the written statement on 12.05.2010. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the defendants/petitioners that the statutory period of 30 days as stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory but directory in nature. It is Civil Revision No.4056 of 2010(O&M) #3# further submitted that the issue involved in the suit is with regard to the immovable property and valuable rights of the parties are involved.
It is further submitted that after the striking of the defence of the defendants/petitioners no effective proceedings have taken place and rather on 25.08.2010 respondent/plaintiff has moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. In these circumstances, it is prayed that defendant petitioner be granted one last effective opportunity to file their written statement subject to costs as this Court may deem fit. Further in order to seek the relief prayed for reliance has been placed on Kailash v. Nankhu and others (4) SCC 480 and Shaik Salim Haji Abdul Khyamsab v. Kumar and others 2006(1) SCC 46, to contend that the time limit of 30 days as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory in nature being in the realm of procedural law. Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the cited cases has held that though obligation is cast on the defendants to file their written statement within the stipulated period, however, in the endeavour to expedite the hearing and disposal of the suits, the interests of defendants should not be sacrificed by denying them a right to put up their defence.
Operative part
In given cases on payment of compensatory costs and to meet the ends of justice, the Courts have the power to grant extension of time for filing the written statement. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has contested the prayer on the ground that it will further delay the disposal of the suit which is not in consonance with the spirit of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and giving my thoughtful consideration to the facts noticed above and the ratio of the cited judgments, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to grant the Civil Revision No.4056 of 2010(O&M) #4# petitioner/defendant one last opportunity to file the written statement within three weeks from today. This shall, however, be subject to payment of costs which are assessed at Rs.7000/-. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 is set aside and the petitioners are granted one last opportunity to file written statement within three weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
This is subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs payable to respondent/plaintiff by way of demand draft. In addition to that defendants/petitioners are further burdened with cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Dera Bassi. Disposed of in above terms. May 17, 2011 Vinay ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, the impugned
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 6 r. 17; O. 8 r. 1.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 17 May 2011. The bench was JASWANT SINGH.
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.