Civil Revision No.4560 of 2009 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.4560 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : August 13, 2009 Santosh Kumari ... Petitioner VERSUS Raj Rani and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The petitioner – defendant No.1 (herein referred as defendant) has challenged the order dated 24.7.2008 (Annexure P-2), whereby, despite the defendant's counsel being ready to file the written statement, yet the Court did not allow the same to be filed; and the order dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure P-6), vide which the Court refused to recall its order dated 24.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) striking off the defence of the defendant. Heard. The basic order dated 24.7.2008 appears to be contradictory. On the one side,, the Trial Court has recorded that the defendant is ready to file the written statement, while on the other side, it is stating that her counsel is seeking an adjournment. Even otherwise, the proceedings were Civil Revision No.4560 of 2009 (O&M) [ 2 ] not mature enough to proceed further. The Court had allowed the application of the plaintiff for restoration of the suit qua defendant No.2 and ordered to summon him. The Court, instead of taking on record the written statement of defendant No.1, started trying the application for recalling of the order, which continued pending for more than one year. In such circumstances, it was advisable that the Court should not have entered into such useless controversy and would have considered over the rights of defendant No.1 to file the written statement forthwith, so that the further proceedings could continue. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Defendant No.1 shall file written statement within 15 days from today, subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondent may move this court for recalling this order. August 13, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE