Punjab-Haryana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Surjan Singh Thakur & Others on 30 October, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO.6592 OF 2013
DATE OF DECISION : 30th OCTOBER 2013
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh.
.... Petitioner
Versus
Surjan Singh Thakur & others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Defendant no.1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.09.2012 passed by the trial Court thereby striking off defence of defendant no.1-petitioner for not filing the written statement.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that file of the petitioner pertaining to the disputed matter had been lost due to shifting of office and, therefore, the written statement could not be filed in the trial Court but now the file has been traced and, therefore, opportunity should be given to the petitioner for filing written statement.
-2-CR No.6592 of 2013
I have carefully considered the matter. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. Defendant no.1-petitioner appeared in the trial Court on 29.03.2012 but failed to file written statement for more than five months till 08.09.2012 when the impugned order was passed by the trial Court. No such request was made in the trial Court on various dates of hearing during the interregnum that file of the petitioner had been lost and, therefore, the written statement could not be filed. Consequently, the said plea now taken in this belated revision petition, cannot be accepted. In this context, it is significant to notice that the petitioner in the revision petition has not even alleged as to when its office had been shifted from one place to another resulting in loss of the file and how now the file has been suddenly traced after such a long period.
In addition to the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is also barred by delay and laches. The revision petition has been filed on 29.10.2013 more than one year one month after the passing of the impugned order.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
30th October, 2013 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj'
JUDGE
Raj Kumar
2013.10.30 14:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh