C.R. No.7240 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7240 of 2009 Date of decision:08.12.2009 M/s Mangal Dass Dev Raj …Petitioner Versus Subash Chander and others …Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. P. S Paul, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Petitioner is respondent No.2 in the claim petition filed by respondent No.1 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Vide impugned order dated 26.10.2009, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (in short, the Tribunal) has struck off the defence of the petitioner herein for not filing the written statement. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner herein put in appearance before the Tribunal on 10.08.2009 and did not file written statement till 26.10.2009, the date on which defence of the petitioner was struck off. It has been observed in the impugned order that even formal request for extending time to file written statement was not made on behalf of the petitioner herein before the Tribunal. C.R. No.7240 of 2009 -2- It appears that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order keeping in view the amended provision of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C), which lays down that the defendant shall, within 30 days from the date of service of summon on him, present a written statement in his defence provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of 30 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 it shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. Perusal of this provision reveals that written statement has to be filed within 30 days of the service of summons, but the said time can be extended upto 90 days. In the instant case, Tribunal struck off the defence of the petitioner herein even before the expiry of period of 90 days after the petitioner herein put in appearance before the Tribunal. It was so done by the Tribunal on the ground that no formal request had been made to extend that time to file written statement. However, strict provisions of C.P.C are not applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Moreover, the Tribunal should not have passed such a harsh order of striking off defence of the petitioner herein due to non- filing of written statement even before expiry of 90 days after the petitioner herein appeared before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is allowed to file written statement on payment of heavy costs. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the claimant-respondent No.1 so as to avoid further C.R. No.7240 of 2009 -3- delay and also to save the respondent No.1 from the expenses which he may have to incur in engaging counsel for this revision petition if notice is issued to him in the instant revision petition. In view the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to file written statement before the Tribunal on or before 15.12.2009, the date said to be fixed before the Tribunal, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs precedent. 08.12.2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A.Kaundal JUDGE