SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lalit Batra, J.
Darshna - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Kamla - Respondent - Respondent
CR-7365 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-12-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for petitioner.

The right to be heard and the discretion of the court to grant further time to file written statement, emphasizing the principle that everyone has the right to defend their cause.

Headnote:

Exemption - Civil Revision Petition - The court allowed the exemption application and set aside the order striking off the defense of the petitioner/defendant, emphasizing the right to be heard and the need to provide an effective opportunity to file written statement and reply to stay application.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner/defendant's defense was struck off by the Trial Court due to non-filing of written statement and reply to stay application. The petitioner sought time to file the necessary documents but could not do so within the given opportunities.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the right to be heard and the need to provide an effective opportunity to file written statement and reply to stay application, subject to payment of costs.

Issues: The main issue was the legality of the order striking off the defense of the petitioner/defendant due to non-filing of written statement and reply to stay application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that everyone has the right to be heard and the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory, allowing the court discretion to grant further time to file written statement even after the expiry of the specified period.

Final Decision: The civil revision petition was allowed, setting aside the order striking off the defense of the petitioner/defendant and granting one effective opportunity to file written statement and reply to stay application, subject to payment of costs.

LALIT BATRA, J.

CM-22403-CII-2023

Exemption application allowed, as prayed for.

Main Case

This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 CPC has been filed by petitioner/defendant, impugning the legality of order dated 16.11.2023 (Annexure P-6), rendered by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jind, in Civil Suit CIS No.CS519/2023 titled 'Kamla vs. Darshna', in terms of which, on account of non-filing of written statement and reply to stay application despite availing effective opportunities, defence of petitioner/defendant was struck off.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner inter alia contends that respondent/ plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. On receipt of notice of the suit, counsel for petitioner/defendant appeared before Trial Court on 09.08.2023 and sought time to file Power of Attorney, written statement and reply to application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC and the matter was adjourned to 15.09.2023. On 15.09.2023, on the request of counsel for petitioner/ defendant, the case was adjourned to 19.10.2023. However, due to some unavoidable circumstances, petitioner/defendant could not appear in person before Trial Court on 19.10.2023 and 16.11.2023 though her counsel was present in the Court and sought time to file written statement and reply to injunction application. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.11.2023 struck off the defence of petitioner/defendant without affording any further opportunity to file written statement and reply to stay application. Petitioner/defendant could not file written statement and reply to stay application as she could not arrange the relevant documents.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are only directory and not mandatory and to this effect, reliance has been placed upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 (SC) 3353, wherein it has been held as under:-

    “22. xx xx xx xx In construing the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 10, the doctrine of harmonious construction is required to be applied. The effect would be that under Rule 10 of Order VIII, the court in its discretion would have power to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of period of 90 days provided in Order VIII Rule 1. There is no restriction in Order VIII Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The Court has wide power to 'make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit'. Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 providing for upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. xx xx xx xx”

    Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that if the petitioner/defendant is not allowed to defend her case, she will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Thus, one more effective opportunity may be given to petitioner/defendant to file written statement and reply to stay application so that suit may be disposed of effectively and properly."

    4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and have also gone through the contents of petition especially the documents placed on the record.

    5. Notice of instant petition is not required to be given to respondent as entire documents i.e. copies of miscellaneous orders passed by learned Trial Court are already on record. In order to avoid further delay in the litigation and unnecessary litigation expenditure, the service of notice to respondent is dispensed with.

    6. In view of ratio decidendi in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu case (supra) and further keeping in view basic principle of law that everyone has right of hearing and, thus, no one should be condemned unheard, in this scenario petitioner/defendant should not have been deprived of her legal right to defend her cause. Since written statement is a basic document to substantiate the cause of a

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top