P&H HC grants one more opportunity to defendant for filing written statement subject to plantation of 50 trees; says Courts should ordinarily, not take harsh view of striking off defense at very early stage

Read Order: Pritam Singh v. Ranvir Singh 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 12, 2022: While dealing with a revision petition against the Trial Court’s decision wherein the defence of the petitioner- respondent was struck off for non-filing of his written statement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is trite law that rules of procedure are handmaids of justice. Any interpretation thereof that leads to foil real and substantial justice between the parties ought to be discouraged.

The Bench of Justice Arun Monga made the above-stated observation while stating that even otherwise, the provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, has been held to be directory in nature by the Supreme Court in Salem Bar Association v. UOI. The Courts should ordinarily, therefore, not take too harsh a view to strike off the defence of the defendant at a very early stage,added the Bench.

In this case, the petitioner-defendant booked a marriage palace that belonged to the respondent-plaintiff by paying an advance amount. However, he did not pay the remaining amount and as a result, the respondent- petitioner filed a suit for recovery of the remaining amount. The case was adjourned on four occasions owing to the non-filing of the written statement by the petitioner-defendant. Eventually, on October 14, 2021, the defence of the petitioner-defendant was struck off by the trial Court due to such non-filing. Hence, aggrieved by this, the revision petition was filed before the High Court against this impugned order. 

While stating that the impugned order resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, the petitioner’s counsel argued that though the reply of the petitioner was duly prepared on October 14, 2021, however, due to the advocate’s strike at District Court, Gurdaspur on the said date, it could not be filed. He further submitted that the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for setting aside the aforesaid order, but the same was not entertained on the ground of maintainability. 

The Court found substance in the petitioner’s case and said that in the case in hand, on the appointed day, reply/affidavit was ready but it seems that due to the advocate’ strike on the said date, it could not be filed. Further, it was observed by the Court that in any case, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the petitioner is permitted to file his written statement even at this stage. 

Thus, the Court granted one more opportunity to the petitioner for filing his written statement subject to the plantation of 50 trees of deciduous and perennial in nature in his neighbourhood, under the supervision of the District Horticulture Department. Proof of such plantation was also sought by the Bench.

Therefore, the impugned order was modified to that extent.