IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 15.10.2010 C.R.No.6640 of 2010 (O&M) Karamjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Surjit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. D.R.Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The defendant is in revision aggrieved against the orders dated 28.05.2010 and 26.08.2010 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the defence of the defendant was struck off for not filing the written statement. The plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 02.05.2008, wherein ` 16,45,000/- is said to be the amount of earnest money paid to the defendant-petitioner out of the sale consideration of ` 22,23,750/-. The first date for filing of written statement was 22.01.2010. The written statement was not filed on 04.02.2010, 23.02.2010, 18.03.2010, 08.04.2010 and 28.05.2010. Accordingly, the learned trial Court struck off the defence of the petitioner for not filing the written statement on 28.05.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the said order, which has been dismissed on 26.08.2010. Aggrieved against the orders dated 28.05.2010 and 26.08.2010, the defendant is in revision. It is contended that the written statement was prepared, but the same could not be filed because the counsel for the petitioner was busy in some other Court. C.R.No.6640 of 2010 (O&M) I do not find that the reasoning propounded by the petitioner is tenable. The case is fixed before the learned trial Court at Kapurthala. Keeping in view the number of Courts at Kapurthala, it is impossible to imagine that the counsel for the petitioner would not be in a position to file written statement, even when the case was fixed on numerous dates. It appears that the petitioner having received the substantial amount of earnest money, is interested in delaying the proceedings and, therefore, has adopted the dilatory tactics. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Delhi High Court reported as Vinay Bhushan Chandhok Vs. Vivek Bhushan Chandhok and another 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 224, to contend that procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, as such laws are always subservient and in aid of justice. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgment. However, the facts of the case speak for themselves. In spite of numerous opportunities granted to the petitioner, written statement was not filed. Keeping in view the nature of allegations in the suit and conduct of the petitioner, I do not find that any case is made out for interference in the orders passed by the Courts below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. 15.10.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2