Civil Revision No.5352 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5352 of 2011 Date of Decision:05.09.2011 Hawa Singh ......Petitioner Versus Ramesh Chand .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ajay Ghangas, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Ramesh Chand son of Hari Chand-respondent-plaintiff(for short “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.08.2006 against Hawa Singh son of Jage Ram-petitioner-defendant(for brevity “the defendant”). The trial Court allowed the amendment of the plaint by virtue of order dated 30.04.2008(Annexure P-1) and the case was adjourned for filing the written statement to the amended plaint. 2. As, the defendant did not file the written statement to the amended plaint, therefore, the trial Court struck off his defence, by means of impugned order dated 05.12.2008(Annexure P-3). 3. The application(Annexure P-4) filed by the defendant, for permission to file the written statement, was dismissed as well by the trial Court, by way of impugned order dated 01.08.2011(Annexure P-5). 4. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexures P-3 and P-5) of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendant preferred the present revision petition, under Article 227 Civil Revision No.5352 of 2011 2 of the Constitution of India. 5. 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- 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 regard. Be that as it may, but still he would be at liberty to file the petition to review this order, without accepting the costs, if so desires. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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. 7. 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 of the defendant was that, he did not file the written statement to the amended plaint, despite many opportunities, including the last opportunity. 8. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the defendant, to file the written statement, subject to costs. The filing of written statement is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties. If the opportunity to file the written statement and to contest the case is not granted to the defendant, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his case. In this manner, the trial Court committed a material, procedural irregularity and illegality and the impugned orders cannot be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-plaintiff, particularly when, he can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The trial Court Civil Revision No.5352 of 2011 3 is directed to provide one more opportunity to the defendant, to file his written statement. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiff. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. September 05, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5352 of 2011 4 C.M.No.21422-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5352 of 2011 Present: Mr.Ajay Ghangas, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 05, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE