C.R. No. 4820 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4820 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 25, 2009 Sanjeev Kumar Dalal …..Petitioner Vs. Satpal Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Dinesh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is defendant No.1 in a suit filed by plaintiff- respondent Satpal Singh against the petitioner- defendant and 11 others for rendition of account in concern with dissolved partnership firm M/s Dalal Automobiles, Julana, District Jind. Vide impugned order dated May 18, 2009, the defence of the petitioner has been struck off as he had failed to file written statement C.R. No. 4820 of 2009 [2] within a period of 90 days after his appearance as required under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the impugned order it is apparent that the co-defendants of the petitioner i.e. defendants No.2 to 4 had not been served on the day when the impugned order was passed besides this counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed for objecting the adjudication by the Civil Court in view of the arbitration agreement between the parties was dismissed on April 22, 2009. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file the written statement, the petitioner will get an opportunity to defend the case on merits which will be in the interest of justice. After going through all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no doubt the petitioner as defendant has been negligent in filing the written statement but in view of the other circumstances that co-defendants had not been served and the application of the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act had been disposed of in the end of April, 2009, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to file written statement. Taking into consideration the interest of the parties I propose to dispose of this petition in limine which would be expedient in the interest of justice and would save the plaintiff- respondent from unnecessary expenditure of appearing and contesting the petition in High Court. C.R. No. 4820 of 2009 [3] This petition is allowed in limine. Interim order dated May 18, 2009 striking the defence of the petitioner- defendant No.1 is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the petitioner will be given one opportunity to file the written statement in the Court on August 31, 2009 subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs to the plaintiff- respondent. It is made clear that in case the written statement is not filed and costs is not paid on the next date of hearing before the trial Court, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. August 25, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE