C. R. No. 2868 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2868 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 19, 2009 Mohan Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. Madan Singh alias Chanan Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. S. Chandi, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by defendants no.1 and 5 to 7 assailing order dated 16.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, whereby defence of petitioners along with defendant no.9 (respondent no.6 herein) has been struck off under Order 10 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – the CPC) because inspite of two opportunities, they failed to appear to make statement under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC, even statement of counsel could be recorded and the counsel was present. The contention, although apparently attractive on first blush, is devoid of merit. The case was fixed before the trial court for C. R. No. 2868 of 2009 2 04.02.2009 as well for the same purpose. On that date also, counsel for the parties were present, but the parties did not come present for making their statement under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC. Counsel for the parties requested for adjournment and the case was adjourned to 16.03.2009, but even on 16.03.2009, the petitioner and defendant no.9 did not come present, nor their counsel stated that he was ready to make statement on their behalf under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC. Consequently, the trial court was left with no option but to pass the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioners on payment of cost for making their statement under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC. I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are granted one opportunity as prayed for on payment of heavy cost. I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to plaintiff-respondent no.1 so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save respondent no.1 of the expenses he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice is issued to him. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed and impugned order to the extent of striking off the defence of the petitioners is set aside and it is ordered that the petitioners shall be granted one opportunity by the trial court to make statement under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent. The petitioners are directed to appear in the trial court on 01.06.2009 and the trial court, after giving notice to counsel for plaintiff, shall fix a date for recording statement of the petitioners under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC. May 19, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE