Sanjiv Bajaj vs Rajiv Bajaj And Others on 12 April, 2019

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sanjiv Bajaj vs Rajiv Bajaj And Others on 12 April, 2019

Bench: Raj Mohan Singh

CR-2031-2019                                       1
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                             Civil Revision No.2031 of 2019
                             Date of Decision: 12.04.2019

SANJIV BAJAJ                            ......Petitioner
     Vs
RAJIV BAJAJ AND OTHERS                  ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present: Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

        Mr. N.S. Swaitch, Advocate
        for respondents No.1 and 2.

        Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate
        for respondent No.3.
           ****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

[1]. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 13.09.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Mohali, whereby defence of the defendant/petitioner was struck off for want of written statement.

[2]. Perusal of the impugned order would show that defendant No.1 had appeared before the trial Court on 10.03.2016, whereas the written statement was not filed, even after extended period of 90 days.

[3]. Perusal of record would further show that there is some omission on the part of the petitioner in not filing the written statement despite six opportunities.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 13-05-2019 00:48:32 ::: CR-2031-2019 2 [4]. Petitioner has relied upon medical certificate issued by the Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32- Chandigarh in the context of being treated for the ailment of paralysis.

[5]. The provision in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory in nature, though the same has been couched in a mandatory overtone. In an appropriate case, the Court can extend the time for filing written statement even beyond the period of 90 days. Reference can be made to Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors., 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 379; Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 729 and Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353.

[6]. In view of aforesaid, one opportunity needs to be given to the petitioner to file written statement on the date already fixed before the trial Court. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.09.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Mohali is set aside. This revision petition is allowed, however subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the plaintiffs. [7]. Payment of costs shall be the condition precedent for granting indulgence by the trial Court in the aforesaid context.

April 12, 2019                             (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Atik                                             JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned       Yes/No
Whether reportable              Yes/No




                                 2 of 2
              ::: Downloaded on - 13-05-2019 00:48:32 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court