RA No.187-CII of 2010 in CR No.569 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA No.187-CII of 2010 in CR No.569 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.11.2010 Chetan Kumar Garg ....Petitioner Versus Harish Kumar and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate, for the review applicant. Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for non-applicant/petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) RA No.187-CII of 2010 in CR No.569 of 2010 Defence of the defendant/review applicant was directed to be struck off by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 26.5.2009 on account of non-filing of written statement within stipulated period of 90 days. However, order dated 26.5.2009 striking off the defence of the defendant/review applicant was recalled vide order dated 24.10.2009 subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/-. Plaintiff/revisionist has challenged the order of the Rent Controller dated 24.10.2010 recalling the order of striking of the defence in Civil Revision No.569 of 2010. This Court vide order dated 27.4.2010 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 24.10.2009 meaning thereby defendant was not RA No.187-CII of 2010 in CR No.569 of 2010 -2- permitted to place on record the written statement. Learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly stated that written statement had already been placed on the record. The only question involved before this Court is, as to whether Rent Controller can recall its own order striking off defence of the defendant for non-filing of the written statement within 90 days. In the opinion of this Court, every Court has inherent power to recall orders in the interest of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case while invoking Section 151 CPC. Since order was recalled by the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 24.10.2009 and defendant was permitted to place on record his written statement subject to payment of costs, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Rent Controller. View taken by this Court vide judgment dated 27.4.2010 seems to be incorrect on the face of it, hence order dated 27.4.2010 passed by this Court is recalled/reviewed. CR No.569 of 2010 Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kailash Vs. Nankhu and others, (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 480 while interpreting provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC has observed that provisions of Rule 1 of Order 8 CPC are not mandatory but are directive and procedural and in appropriate cases on sufficient cause being shown for not-filing written statement within stipulated period, Court has every power to take on record written statement beyond the stipulated period. In view of the order passed by the Rent Controller, permitting the defendant to place on record the written statement after stipulated period by recalling the earlier order of striking off defence, learned Rent RA No.187-CII of 2010 in CR No.569 of 2010 -3- Controller seems to have acted within its jurisdiction and seems to be justified in action. No interference is called in the order impugned dated 24.10.2009. Revision is dismissed. Tenant/defendant shall pay entire arrears as assessed by the Rent Controller within one month from today, failing which learned Rent Controller shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Tenant/defendant shall also pay cost awarded by the learned Rent Controller on or before the date fixed before the learned Rent Controller. Learned Rent Controller is further requested to decide the eviction petition without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the party, preferably within six months from the date certified copy of this order is placed before the learned Rent Controller. (Alok Singh) Judge November 30, 2010 R.S.