C.R. No. 2865 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2865 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.5.2010 ... State of Haryana and others ................Petitioners vs. The Jind Vishav Karma Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Ltd., District Jind. .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against the order dated 15.2.2010 passed by Sh. Sanjay Khanduja, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, vide which the defence of the defendants-now petitioners, has been struck off. Learned trial Court observed that the suit was filed on 30.11.2009 and GP on behalf of the State appeared on 19.1.2010. Service on respondents No. 1 and 2 was effected on 7.12.2009, whereas service on defendant No.3-Superintending Engineer was effected on 7.11.2009. So, the period of more than 3 months has expired in respect of service on defendant No.3, whereas the period of C.R. No. 2865 of 2010 -2- more than 2 months has expired in respect of service on defendants No. 1 and 2. So, defence of all the defendants was struck off. Since, the only dispute is regarding filing of written statement, so notice need not be issued to the respondent. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon authority reported as Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab vs. Kumar and others 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 823. In the said authority, it has been laid down by the Apex Court as under:- 1) All the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. 2) Provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in ends of justice. 3) No person has a vested right in any course of procedure – He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. 4) A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. 1998 (1) RCR (Rent) 454 SC relied. 5) Processor law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Learned trial Court has taken hyper technical view in striking off the defence of the State. In the present case, even 3 months have not passed after the C.R. No. 2865 of 2010 -3- service of respondents No. 1 and 2 and the defence has been struck off. So, in these circumstances, the impugned order does not sustain the test of legal scrutiny and the same stands set aside. The defendant-petitioners are allowed to file the written statement within one month from today on payment of Rs.500/- as costs. The petition stands disposed of. ( K.C. Puri ) 3.5.2010 Judge chugh