Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2722
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK SIBAL, HARPREET SINGH BRAR, JJ.
RPS Infrastrucutre Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 12947 of 2023
Decided On : 02-06-2023
Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Headnote:(A) The principles of natural justice - A party to proceedings must not be precluded from pleading their defence at the threshold - The order closing the right of the petitioner to file a written statement was not sustainable in law. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to set aside the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal which rejected the filing of its written statement. The written statement, posted for filing on 22.04.2019, was actually submitted on 25.06.2019.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's order precluding the petitioner from presenting a defence violated natural justice principles.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal's refusal to accept the written statement was legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is essential for natural justice that no party be denied the opportunity to present a defence, reaffirming the necessity to allow the written statement.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner filed a written statement that was not accepted. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. impugned order violates principles of natural justice. (Para 3) |
| 3. court mandates acceptance of written statement and overturns previous order. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.1-Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh, vide which the written statement of the petitioner i.e. defendant No.2 (in the O.A.), was not taken on record. Petitioner further prays for directing respondent No.1 to take the written statement dated 25.06.2019 on record which was already filed before the Registry of respondent No.1 vide diary No. 8420 dated 25.06.2019.
2. Respondent No.2 has filed OA No. 667 of 2018 before the respondent No.1 in which the petitioner is one of the respondents. Petitioner was directed to file his written statement on 22.04.2019 whereas the written statement was filed on 25.06.2019. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-12), has refused to take on record the writtenstatement filed by the petitioner.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order (Annexure P-12) whereby respondent No.1 has closed the right of the petitioner to file written statement and adjourned the case for 02.07.2025 for arguments, we are prima facie convinced that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it violates the principles of natural justice. No party to any proceedings pending before respondent No.1 should be precluded from pleading his defence at the threshold.
4. Keeping in view the limited prayer made by the petitioner in this petition, the respondent No.1 is directed to take the written statement of the petitioner dated 25.06.2019 on record which was filed before the Registry of respondent No.1 vide diary No. 8420 dated 25.06.2019.
5. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-12) is set aside.
