IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 807 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: February 03, 2011 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited .. Petitioner Vs. Malvinder Singh Bajwa and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) CM No. 3266-CII of 2011 Heard. For the reasons as mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the applicant- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited is impleaded as party- plaintiff and permitted to file and pursue the petition in place of Punjab State Electricity Board. C.R. No. 807 of 2011 The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure P3) passed by the trial court vide which defence of the defendant- petitioner was struck off due to non filing of the reply. The impugned order reveals that the defence of the petitioner was struck off on the ground that written statement was not filed within a stipulated period of 90 days. The explanation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that two suits were pending and when the second suit was adjourned for 23.10.2010, it was misunderstood that this suit was also adjourned for 23.10.2010, however, later on the petitioner came to know that this suit was adjourned for 21.10.2010. In any way, it would be too harsh to refuse the petitioner to file written statement, however, the fault could be repaired by way of costs. Civil Revision No. 807 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Resultantly, this petition is disposed of and the petitioner- defendant is permitted to file written statement subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs. It is further made clear that only one opportunity would be granted to the petitioner- defendant to file written statement. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move to this court for recalling this order. February 03, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge