Civil Revision No.6759 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6759 of 2008 Date of decision : 19.1.2009 Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and another .....Petitioners Versus Bachna Ram and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sachin Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The defendants-petitioners are in revision against the order dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure P-2), vide which the learned Trial Court struck off their defence on account of non-payment of costs and the non filing of the written statement within statutory period. The plea deserves to be allowed. The reasons therefor are as under:- The defendants-petitioners had been proceeded exparte vide order dated 6.10.2006. The exparte order was set aside by learned Trial Court on 23.4.2008 on consensual basis. It was on 23.4.2008 that the case was adjourned for the first time, to 3.6.2008 for payment of costs and for filing of written statement. It was made clear in that order that the Civil Revision No.6759 of 2008 -2- **** payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for the taking of written statement on record. The case could not be taken up on 3.6.2008 as the Presiding Officer was availing earned leave from 1.6.2008 to 15.6.2008. The matter was taken up thereafter on 29.7.2008. Learned Trial Court noticed that costs had not been paid and written statement had also not been filed. A plea for further adjournment of the matter was declined and defence of the defendants-petitioners was struck off. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to receipt dated 3.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) vide which the counsel representing the plaintiffs had received the amount of Rs.1000/- as costs in this case. In that view of things, it is apparent that there is a factual inaccuracy in the impugned order inasmuch as the impugned order dated 29.7.2008 notices that costs had not been paid; whereas Annexure P-1 (a receipt dated 3.6.2008) is to the effect that amount of costs had been paid to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is further apparent that the pre 29.7.2008 period cannot, at all, be taken into consideration for counting the statutory period within which a written statement had to be statutorily filed, particularly when the allowance of the plea for setting aside of the exparte proceedings had been conceded on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents. (This fact is noticed in the order dated 23.4.2008 on which date case was adjourned to 3.6.2008). Even otherwise, the law would relish adjudication of a judicial matter on the basis of pleadings of the parties. In the absence of any statutory bar or very strong circumstances to the contrary, the Court would be inclined to allow the reception of the pleadings of the parties. If there had been delay in the context, the Court would like to compensate the Civil Revision No.6759 of 2008 -3- **** opposite party by the imposition of the costs. The essential idea, thus, is that the parties to a cause should be enabled to have the decision on merits. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The petitioners shall pay the amount of costs and also file the written statement before the Trial Court on 2.2.2009. January 19, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE