CR No. 6390 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 6390 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.11.2010 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 1.9.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ludhiana, whereby application moved by the defendant seeking permission to place on record written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application, was declined. From the perusal of the record, it seems that the defendant has moved an application before the trial Court stating therein that he has placed on record written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application and the same got misplaced from the file of the trial Court. CR No. 6390 of 2010 2 From the perusal of the report, it is further revealed that now the defendant wants to place on record written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application. The trial Court has rejected the application seeking permission to place on record written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that although, written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application was filed, however, the same was misplaced from the court records. He further states that to avoid any complication, defendant is seeking permission to place on record written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that defendant remained in confusion that written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application was filed, however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, last opportunity should be granted to the defendant to place on record written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application. The Apex Court in the matter of Kailash Vs. Nankhu reported in 2005(4) SCC 480, has observed that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory but are directory in nature and on sufficient grounds being shown, an opportunity should be granted to the defendant to file written statement beyond the period of 90 days. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to avoid undue delay in disposal of the application and suit, which is pending since 2006, I direct that the defendant shall file written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application within 15 days from today. Defendant - petitioner shall also pay Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff - respondent as costs on CR No. 6390 of 2010 3 or before the date of filing of the written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application. Although, notices were issued to the respondents but the same have not been received back served or otherwise, hence without issuing fresh notice to the respondent, present petition is disposed of with the direction that if the respondent feels aggrieved from the present order, he shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recall of the order. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 10.11.2010 sk.