Civil Revision No. 70 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 70 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.03.2009. Smt. Indrawati ....Petitioner Versus Surender Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The facts, apparent from the record, and even otherwise conceded in the course of the presentation before this Court, are as under:- The petitioner had been impleaded as defendant no.2 in civil suit No. 139 of 8.10.2003. On 19.12.2003, a counsel entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner herein as well and informed the Court that he had no instructions to appear on her behalf. In the light of that statement, the learned Trial Court ordered that the name of the petitioner herein (and defendant no.2 therein) shall stand struck off. On the subsequent date, a counsel entered appearance on behalf of both the defendants therein but filed pleadings only on behalf of defendant no.1 therein. Though the power of attorney was in favour of the learned counsel had been executed by both the defendants including the petitioner herein, the pleadings were filed only Civil Revision No. 70 of 2009 -2- **** on behalf of defendant no.1 therein apparently because the name of petitioner herein had been struck off. Ultimately, when the trial reached the stage of conclusion, the learned Trial Court (on a plea filed by the respondents herein) rectified the order above mentioned and recorded that instead of striking off the name of the petitioner herein (and defendant no.2 therein), his defence shall be deemed to have been struck off in the light of the statement made by the learned counsel pleadings want of instructions on the relevant date. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that her defence could not have been struck off because there was no ground whatsoever for it. In view of the fact that a counsel had already entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner herein (defendant no.2 therein) when the matter came to be adjourned for another date for filing of the pleadings, all that Court could do was either to order exparte proceedings against defendant no.2 therein or, in its discretion, order the issuance of a notice afresh to that party. The order qua striking off the name of the petitioner herein was absolutely improper. In the scheme of things under the Civil Procedure Code, a party is entitled to either enter appearance in person or it could well authorise an Advocate to appear on its behalf. In the event of a conceputalised contingency that a duly authorised counsel opts to withdraw the power of attorney or to plead want of instructions, the Court shall have the option of either directing exparte proceedings or granting an order of issuance of notice afresh to that party. It must otherwise be noticed that the adoption of the latter course would be more appropriate. The Trial Court cannot order striking off the name of that party nor can it possibly Civil Revision No. 70 of 2009 -3- **** pass an order striking off the defence of that party. The latter order can be granted only under the circumstances envisioned in the C.P.C. That eventuality could include an occasion when a party declines to pay the compensatory costs imposed under Section 35-B C.P.C. In any case, the inescapable inference deducible in the circumstances of the case is that the Trial Court could neither have validly struck off the name of the petitioner herein nor could it have validly struck off the defence of the petitioner herein. In that view of things, the impugned order of rectification is also not in accord with law. In view of the proven position that the learned counsel had filed a power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner herein as well on the adjourned date, ( though he refrained from filing pleadings on her behalf under an apparent impression that her name had been struck off), the matter was at the stage of filing of pleadings only and the petitioner herein could have validly filed her pleadings. The petitioner herein was not required to obtain the setting aside of any order before being able to raise a claim for entitlement to file pleadings. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The petitioner herein shall be entitled to file the pleadings at the trial. In view of the unenviable (though conceded position) that the trial is about more than six years old, it would be desirable that the learned Trial Court dispose of the suit within six months from the next date of hearing before it. If the next date of hearing is inordinately long, the learned Trial Court would be well within its ; jurisdiction to order notified the preponement thereof. In that eventuality, the six months period would be computed with effect from the date on which the matter is taken up by the learned Trial Court for the first time. Civil Revision No. 70 of 2009 -4- **** The petitioner herein shall be duty bound to file pleadings on that date itself and the learned Trial Court shall not be entitled to grant any further adjournment for filing of pleadings at the trial. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned date. March 18, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge