In CR-1432-2023 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC have been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory, reaffirms P&H High Court
Justice Alka Sarin [15-03-2023]
Read Order: RADHA KRISHAN VS SHIBBA CHABBRA
Chandigarh, March 18, 2023: While allowing the revision petition challenging the order passed by the Rent Controller whereby the defence of the tenant-petitioner had been struck off for not filing his written statement despite numerous opportunities, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed the petitioner deserved one opportunity to file his written statement and to contest the case.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Alka Sarin said, “Keeping in view the fact that the provisions are directory in nature and the tenant-petitioner has been running a shop in the premises in dispute since 2010, he deserves one opportunity to file his written statement and to contest the case.”
The counsel for the tenant-petitioner contended that the tenant-petitioner had put in appearance on February 23, 2022. It was further contended that the matter was pending before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, when an application was filed by the landlord - respondent for striking off the defence.
Counsel for the landlord-respondent on the other hand, contended that delaying tactics are being adopted by the tenant-petitioner time and again and in fact there was also a delay in approaching this Court while filing the present revision petition.
After considering the submissions of the parties, the Court noted, “ The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC have been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory”.
Reliance at this stage was placed on the judgment in Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini.
Further reliance was placed on the judgment in Bharat Kalra Vs. Raj Kishan Chabra, wherein it was held that the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory.
Thus, by keeping in view the fact that the provisions are directory in nature and the tenant-petitioner was running a shop in the premises in dispute since 2010, he deserves one opportunity to file his written statement and to contest the case, the Court observed.
The present revision petition was accordingly allowed.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to stay up to date on our product, events featured blog, special offer and all of the exciting things that take place here at Legitquest.
Add a Comment