Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kaur And Anr vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 23 May, 2017
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
C.R. No.3487 of 2017 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No.3487 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.05.2017
Surinder Kaur and another ....Petitioners
Versus
Baljit Kaur and others ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.11753-CII of 2017 This application has been moved for placing on record the zimni orders as Annexure P-2 (colly) and exemption from filing certified copies of the same.
C.M is allowed as prayed for.
C.R. No.3487 of 2017 This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Payal, whereby, the defence of the petitioners has been struck off.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were given opportunity on 24.08.2016 to file written statement subject to cost of ` 2,000/-. The written statement was filed by the petitioners but since the amount of cost was not deposited, the defence of the petitioners was struck off. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are ready 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 07-06-2017 17:42:39 ::: C.R. No.3487 of 2017 (O&M) 2 to pay the cost amount but only one opportunity is required to deposit the same. No prejudice is going to be caused to the other party.
Without issuing any notice in the case as not only the delay would be caused, in case, the other party is called before this Court but unnecessary expenses will have to be incurred by them, the present petition is being disposed of today. The cost amount has not been paid and no reason, whatsoever, has been mentioned while passing the impugned order. The petitioners have been allowed to file written statement but because of non-depositing of an amount of ` 2,000/-, their defence has been struck off. Non-payment of cost is not a ground to struck off the defence.
On perusal of impugned order as well as zimni orders, which are on record and by considering the submissions, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are ready to deposit the cost amount on one date only and for that reason, only one opportunity is required to be given.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.02.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Payal, whereby, the defence of the petitioners has been struck off, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioners to pay the cost amount. However, in case, the amount of cost is not deposited by the petitioners on one date, then they will not be entitled for any further date for this purpose.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
23.05.2017 JUDGE
gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 07-06-2017 17:42:40 :::