Civil Revision No.5133 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5133 of 2011 Date of Decision:25.08.2011 Baldev Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Didar Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Didar Singh son of Jagir Singh- respondent No.1-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.02.2004, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Baldev Singh, Hardev Singh-petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 and other proforma respondents-defendant Nos.3 to 6(for short “the defendants”), from alienating the property in question, in any manner. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application, to struck off the defence of the petitioner-defendant Nos.1 and 2, on account of non-filing of the written statement. They refuted the prayer of the plaintiff, filed the reply and prayed for dismissal of the application. 3. The trial Court accepted the application and held that since, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not filed the written statement and intend to delay the proceedings, so, their defence was struck off, by means of impugned order dated Civil Revision No.5133 of 2011 2 03.08.2010(Annexure P-2). 4. The application for recalling the order(Annexure P-2) and for permitting them(defendant Nos.1 and 2) to file the written statement, was also dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 18.05.2011 (Annexure P-6). 5. Aggrieved by the decisions(Annexures P-2 and P-6) of the trial Court, petitioner-defendant Nos.1 and 2 preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to respondent No.1- plaintiff, in order to save him from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when he can well be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant Nos.1 and 2, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 8. As is clear from the impugned orders that the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to struck off the defence was that, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not filed the written statement, despite many opportunities, after setting aside the ex-parte proceedings against them on 07.10.2008. 9. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into taking into consideration the nature of litigation between the parties, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to defendant Nos.1 and 2, to file the written statement, subject to costs. The filing of written statement is an essential step-in-aid, to decide the real controversy between the parties. If the opportunity to file the written statement and to contest the case, is not granted, then it will inculcate and Civil Revision No.5133 of 2011 3 perpetuate injustice to their case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to respondent No.1-plaintiff, particularly when he can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to defendant Nos.1 and 2, to file their written statement. However, this would be subject to the payment of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs, to be paid by defendant Nos.1 and 2 to respondent No.1-plaintiff. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiff. The payment of costs shall be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for strict compliance. August 25, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5133 of 2011 4 C.M.No.20644-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5133 of 2011 Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. August 25, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE