Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kapoor vs Raj Karan And Ors on 9 December, 2014
CR-6999-2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-6999-2014
Date of decision: 09.12.2014
Raj Kapoor
..... Petitioner
Versus
Raj Karan and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
PRESENT: Mr. SK Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
R.P. NAGRATH, J. (ORAL)
The instant revision has been filed by petitioner-defendant No. 2 for setting aside the order dated 3.6.2011 and the subsequent order dated 20.9.2014 passed by the trial Court.
2. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that the learned trial Court has struck off the defence of petitioner-defendant No. 2 for non- filing of the written statement despite sufficient opportunities granted. As observed by the learned trial Court in the order dated 3.6.2011 that the mandatory period of 90 days for filing the written statement as permitted by Rule VIII CPC expired on 12.4.2011 but learned trial Court RISHU KATARIA 2014.12.15 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-6999-2014 -2- still granted the petitioner and some other defendants another opportunity to file written statement and that was subject to payment of costs. Having not complied with those conditions, defence of the petitioner was struck off vide order dated 3.6.2011. None of the other defendant(s) challenged the impugned order except petitioner-defendant No. 2.
3. The said order was challenged in CR-4627-2013 and that was disposed of by this Court on 5.8.2013 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial Court itself and make out a case as to why he could not file the written statement, as provided under Order VIII CPC.
4. The learned trial Court ultimately passed the order dated 20.9.2014, rejecting the prayer made by petitioner-defendant No. 2 by making observations that sufficient opportunities being already granted and no case was made out for permitting the petitioner to file the written statement now.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the paper-book.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that given only one opportunity, the petitioner would file the written statement. The suit was filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for declaration challenging the General Power of Attorney and the consequent sale deed executed by the brother of petitioner as attorney in his favour. However, the petitioner has also set up a case that he is in extreme hardship because according to the petitioner his son was murdered by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and his son for which an FIR was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian RISHU KATARIA 2014.12.15 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-6999-2014 -3- Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the said trial son of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was convicted.
7. The submission of learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is that learned trial Court may also be directed to decide the suit expeditiously if the permission is granted to the petitioner to file the written statement.
8. Looking into the above background, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 3.6.2011 and 20.9.2014 are set aside, subject to payment of ` 20,000/- as costs to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 by way of demand draft in the name of respondent No. 1 to be handed over to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 or his counsel on the next date already fixed before the trial Court i.e. 8.1.2015 and also the petitioner shall file written statement on the said date.
9. It is, however, made very clear that failure to comply with the above-stated conditions by the petitioner, the instant petition would stand dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
December 09, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE
RISHU KATARIA
2014.12.15 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document