Ranjit Singh & Ors. v. Dharmo Bai & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 21 Aug 2009
- Bench
- SABINA
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 1 r. 10; O. 6 r. 17
Judgment
Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for Mr.Puneet Leekha, Advocate for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated
11.5.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Tohana, whereby, the opportunity for filing written statement by the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 was closed by order. Plaintiff Dharmo Bai filed a suit for specific performance. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) for Civil Revision No. 4490 of 2009 (O&M) 2 impleading Gurdeep Kaur and Davinder Kaur, sisters of the present petitioners and Tej Kaur, mother of the petitioner, as respondents. Another application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. The said applications were allowed by the trial Court and the present petitioners have challenged the same by filing revision petitions, which are pending in this Court. Vide impugned order, the defence of the petitioners was struck off as they have failed to file written statement.
Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners had challenged the order vide which the applications under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC were allowed by the trial Court in revision, the written statement was not filed. Now the case is listed before the trial Court on 28.8.2009. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners be allowed to file the written statement on the said date. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. The ends of justice require that a dispute between the parties is disposed of on merits. When a substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do Civil Revision No.
Operative part
4490 of 2009 (O&M) 3 so. In case one opportunity is granted to the petitioners to file their written statement, then the list between the parties would be disposed of on merits. The plaintiff can be compensated with costs. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are allowed to file their written statement on or before 28.8.2009 subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as costs. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed with the case further in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE August 21, 2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 1 r. 10; O. 6 r. 17.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 21 Aug 2009. The bench was SABINA.
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.