Civil Revision No. 7357 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7357 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision. 30.11.2011 Amarjit Kaur and others .... Petitioners Versus Kirpal Kaur and others ......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.G.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.28509-CII of 2011 Application is allowed. The petitioners are exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 and P-2. CR No.7357 of 2011 Amarjit Kaur and two others have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure P-1), vide which learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana had struck off their defence. Civil Revision No. 7357 of 2011 --2-- The suit against the petitioners brought by Kirpal Kaur and Harjinder Kaur is for separate possession by way of partition of ¼ share each of the plaintiffs in the property detailed in head note of the plaint as also for partition of some moveable properties listed therein. Though some other reliefs have also been sought in the suit, yet they are not necessary to be specified here. The impugned order can be reproduced as under:- “Present:- Shri Yashpal Ghai, Advocate for the plaintiff. None for defendants no.2 to 4 and 5. Defendant no.1 expired. Neither the cost has been paid nor the written statement and reply to application has been filed by the defendant no. 2 to 4 and 5. Case called several times during the day. It is already 3.50 PM. As such, defence of defendants no.2 to 4 and 5 is ordered to be struck off. Now to come up on 29.08.2011 for consideration in issues.” I have heard Shri G.S. Punia, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that defendants no. 2 to 4/ the petitioners had already filed the written statement on 22.01.2008 and the case was thereafter adjourned to 01.02.2008 for filing replication. According to him, on non-filing of the Civil Revision No. 7357 of 2011 --3-- replication on 01.02.2008, the case was adjourned to 18.02.2008 and as replication to the written statement of the petitioners was filed on 18.02.2008, the case was adjourned for consideration to 11.03.2008. According to him, defendants no.2 to 4/petitioners were not to file written statement on 04.08.2011. According to him, it was to be filed by the legal representatives of defendant no.1. He has drawn my attention to a copy of order dated 04.01.2010 extracted in the revision petition where defendant no.1 is recorded as dead. He then drew my attention to the copy of the order dated 30.08.2010 where fresh notice was ordered to be issued to the legal representatives of defendant no.1 for 11.11.2010. The same order was repeated on 11.11.2010. According to him, the legal representatives of defendant no.1 were to file written statement on 04.08.2011 and at the worst, defence of the legal representatives of defendant no.1 could be struck off. He has submitted that the impugned order vide which the defence of defendants no.2 to 4 was stuck off is bad. Though for the reasons submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, the order striking off the defence of defendants no.2 to 4 is shown to be bad because their written statement is already on the record, yet the order is otherwise unsustainable. On 04.08.2011 Mr. Yashpal Ghai learned counsel for the plaintiff alone was present in the court and none was there for the defendants. The course open to learned trial court on non-appearance of the defendants or their counsel was to proceed ex- parte against them and not to strike off their defence. Civil Revision No. 7357 of 2011 --4-- In these circumstances, the impugned order clearly appears to be bad. The revision petition is consequently allowed and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to proceed further with the suit in accordance with law. 30.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE