Civil Revision No.4265 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4265 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 18, 2011 Kamesh Kumar and others .....Petitioners v. Gurcharan Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.HNS Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.16922-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4265 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 21.1.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kharar, vide which defence of petitioners-defendants was struck off on account of non- filing of written statement. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for permanent injunction restraining present petitioners- defendants from taking forcible possession of the suit property was filed by respondent-plaintiff. Notice was issued to petitioners-defendants. They were duly served. They put in appearance in this case through their counsel Civil Revision No.4265 of 2011(O&M) -2- on 25.8.2009 and sought several dates for filing written statement. They even filed a wrong application for setting aside ex parte proceedings dated 10.9.2009, whereas they were not proceeded ex parte. The said application was also dismissed by learned trial Court as infructuous. However, despite that written statement was not filed. Hence, learned trial Court was having no other alternative but to order for striking off the defence of present petitioners-defendants vide impugned order, when written statement was not filed even after 1-1/2 years of the appearance and even after getting sufficient opportunities including two consecutive last opportunities. Even the cost subject to payment of which case was adjourned for filing written statement was not paid. A very vague plea has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioners in this petition that there was some mishap in the family, without clarifying as to what was the mishap and when that mishap had happened. It may also be mentioned here that earlier revision petition filed by petitioners was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file another one with better particulars. However, even in this second revision petition, sufficient particulars have not been mentioned showing sufficient cause as to why written statement was not filed for a period of 1-1/2 years after appearance. All the zimni orders have also not been placed on record. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code'), which reads as under:- “1.Written statement The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: PROVIDED that where the defendant fails to file the Civil Revision No.4265 of 2011(O&M) -3- written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.” A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that written statement can be filed within thirty days and if sufficient cause is shown, the Court may allow to file the same within ninety days. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code is not mandatory and rather it is directory in nature. Even if it is taken that provision is directory in nature, petitioner has to make out a sufficient cause for not filing the written statement for 1-1/2 years of appearance. In this case no cause what to talk of sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioners for not filing the written statement even after more than 1-1/2 years of the appearance. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or Civil Revision No.4265 of 2011(O&M) -4- of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 18.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge