C.R. No.138 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.138 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision.14.01.2013 Avinash Kumar son of Ayodhya Nath, resident of Gali No.7/12, Haripura, Amritsar .....Petitioner Versus Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Sahbegh Singh and another.......Respondents Present: Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The written statement is made ready and filed. The Court below has struck off the defence since the statement was not filed before the Court within 90 days by the petitioner. The statement filed before the Court is received and taken on file and will be transmitted to the Court below. The order passed already stands set aside on the condition that he pays costs of ` 7500/- to the petitioner or his counsel within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The statement filed before this Court will be taken on file as a statement if only there is compliance of the direction within a period stipulated above. 2. In passing the order as aforesaid, I dispense with notice to the respondents since the issue of allowing for extension of time is invariably a matter of discretion and it will be ordered that the case is C.R. No.138 of 2011 (O&M) -2- decided on merits on the basis of pleadings and not to allow the landlord to steal a march over the tenant even without allowing the tenant to enter a defence. 3. The revision petition is disposed of with the ultimate object of securing adjudication on merits, which will meet the ends of justice. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 14, 2013 Pankaj*