Civil Revision No.3514 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3514 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 14, 2011 Anil Stone Crushers and another .....Petitioners v. Gurdev Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.13880-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.13881-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record the Annexures. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.3514 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 11.5.2009, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dera Bassi, vide which defence of the petitioners-defendants has been struck off and order dated 18.3.2011, Annexure P2, vide which application filed by petitioners-defendants for review of the said order has also been dismissed by learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone Civil Revision No.3514 of 2011(O&M) -2- through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that written statement was not filed within stipulated period of 90 days due to negligence on the part of lawyer engaged by petitioner- defendants, as he was under the impression that written statement would be filed after service of other defendants would be completed. It is further contended that though appearance was made on behalf of the petitioners- defendants through their counsel on 19.12.2008 and, however the case remained pending for service of remaining respondents-defendants and service was completed only on 11.5.2009, when the impugned order was passed. It is also contended that on that date, though written statement was filed by defendant no.1, however written statement was not filed by present petitioners-defendants as the same was not prepared by their counsel. It is further contended that their counsel requested a date, which was not granted. It is also contended that immediately thereafter, he filed an application for recalling of the said order, however, the same was dismissed by learned trial Court. It is also contended that provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directory in nature and not mandatory. It is also contended that petitioners-defendants cannot be made to suffer due to negligence on the part of their counsel, as petitioners were not aware that written statement was to be filed within 90 days, even though other defendants were not served. In view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioners-defendants and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Civil Revision No.3514 of 2011(O&M) -3- Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioners-defendants to file written statement subject to payment of `10,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:- “ We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner- Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” However, liberty is granted to the respondents to get this Civil Revision No.3514 of 2011(O&M) -4- revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order. 14.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge