C.R. No. 3301 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3301 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.5.2010 ... Meeto and another ................Petitioners vs. Mukandi and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. C.S. Bakhshi Advocate for the petitioners ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against the order dated 9.3.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, vide which the defence of the present petitioners has been struck off for not filing the written statement within 90 days. Mukandi Lal and others filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating any part of the joint property as detailed in the heading of the plaint on the ground that they are co-sharers. The suit was filed on 24.12.2009 and notice of the suit, as well as, application for injunction, was issued to the defendants-now petitioners, for 9.1.2010. On 9.1.2010, the defendants appeared in C.R. No. 3301 of 2010 -2- person and the case was fixed for 8.2.2010 for filing of written statement and stay was extended. On 8.2.2010, written statement was not filed and the case was adjourned to 27.2.2010 and stay was extended. Again on 27.2.2010, written statement was not filed and case was adjourned to 9.3.2010. On 9.3.2010, written statement was again not filed and the learned trial Court observed that statutory period has elapsed and as such defence of the defendants was struck off and the case was adjourned to 15.4.2010 for Pws. The said order dated 9.3.2010, has been impugned in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that father of petitioner No.2 Lachman Singh, who also happens to be husband of petitioner No.1, expired on 4.1.2010 after prolonged illness as he was suffering from paralysis and on that account the present petitioners could not file the written statement on 9.1.2010, 8.2.2010, 27.2.2010 and 9.3.2010. It is further contended that period of 90 days has not elapsed as the defendants put in appearance only on 9.1.2010 and they received the summons on 7.1.2010. The period of 90 days would have elapsed on 7.4.2010. So, the learned trial Court has committed an error. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the authority reported as Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab vs. Kumar and others 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 823, wherein it has been held that Court can allow filing of written statement beyond 90 days also. The rules and procedures are meant to advance the cause of C.R. No. 3301 of 2010 -3- justice and not to thwart it. Prima facie, the trial Court has committed a grave error in calculating the period of 90 days. The suit was filed on 24.12.2009 and notice was issued for 9.1.2010. It is the definite stand of the petitioners that they received summons on 7.1.2010. So, the period of 90 days would have elapsed on 7.4.2010, but the defence of the defendants – petitioners, was struck off on 9.3.2010. So, in these circumstances, the impugned order dated 9.3.2010, does not sustain the test of legal scrutiny and there is patent error on the face of it. Consequently, the impugned order stands set aside and the present petitioners are allowed to file the written statement on payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs. The petition stands disposed of. ( K.C. Puri ) 18.5.2010 Judge chugh