Civil Revision No. 7634 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7634 of 2011 Date of decision. 09.12.2011 Gurcharan Singh .... Petitioner Versus Isher Singh @ Pappu and ors. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Gurcharan Singh, defendant is before me by way of this revision petition making prayer for setting aside the order dated 01.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, vide which his defence has been struck off. The petitioner had been facing a civil suit brought by Ishar Singh alias Pappu and others, the plaintiffs for joint possession of the suit land, properly detailed in head note of the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the same by way of sale, mortgage or in any other manner. The suit was fixed for filing written statement on behalf of the defendant-petitioner on 01.11.2011. Civil Revision No. 7634 of 2011 --2-- When the defendant failed to bring on record his written statement, one more opportunity was sought on his behalf to file the written statement. Finding no justification for further adjournment of the case for the above purpose, the defence of the defendant was struck off. I have heard Mr. P.S. Sekhon, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had though appeared in the suit on 02.02.2011 yet the intervening time was not taken by him for filing the written statement. According to him, on the possibility of a compromise between the parties, the court had referred the matter to Lok Adalat and some time had been spent in this suit before Lok Adalat, which had caused the delay in filing the written statement. It may be true that for sometime the suit after the appearance of the defendant-petitioner remained pending before Lok Adalat, yet it cannot be said that the same prevented the defendant from preparing the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the written statement is ready with the defendant and he requires only one opportunity to produce the same. According to him, in the interest of justice, he should be permitted to produce the same on record. Referring the matter for compromise before Lok Adalat would at least put the efforts of the defendants to prepare the written statement to be presented to the claim of the plaintiff on hold with the Civil Revision No. 7634 of 2011 --3-- hope that the matter may be compromised, which would leave no reason for presenting the written statement to the claim of the plaintiff. So for sometime, the defendant was made to believe that he may not be required to present the written statement. Still the time between 2.2.2011, the date when the defendant appeared in the suit and 1.11.2011 is of nearly nine months and this is very large time which cannot be given to a party to file the written statement. Keeping in view the amount of delay caused by the defendant in preparing the written statement one one hand and the fact that the suit remained pending for efforts of compromise before Lok Adalat for some time on the other hand, I find the petitioner to be entitled to one short opportunity to present the written statement. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order learned trial court is directed to give a short adjournment to the defendant -petitioner to present his written statement. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 09.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh