IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3305 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.5.2011 Gurmej Kaur … Petitioner versus Surinder Kaur and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. D.K.Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the defendant No.1 in the suit for permanent injunction, titled Surinder Kaur v Gurmej Kaur and another. She filed written statement. Defendant No.2 was already ex-parte. She is aggrieved with following order dated 18.1.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jalandhar:- “ Present: Kishore Sareen for plaintiff Hussan Lal for Defendant No.1 Defendant No.2 ex-parte. ... Defendant has not come present to make statement u/s 10 rule 4 CPC. So, in view of provision of Order 10 Rule 4 CPC, the defence of defendant No.1 is struck off. Now to come up on 28.3.2011 for evidence of plaintiff. List of witnesses PF/DM, if any, be filed within a week.” Heard. The intention of the rule is to enable the Court not only to get obscure points clearly by obtaining the information from either of the parties but also, if possible, to get admission so as to narrow down the issues raised in the pleadings but the rule being a penal provision, its terms have C.R. No. 3305 of 2011 -2- essentially to be applied strictly, before the Court can justifiably pass an order striking off the defence of a party. It is abundantly clear from the pharaseology of the rule itself before the Court requires the personal appearance of a party, it should essentially examine the parties' counsel and if it still feels that further elucidation of any point or question is necessary, it may call the party in person. In the instant case, it is evident from the impugned order that petitioner-defendant No.1 was being represented by her counsel Shri Hussan Lal. There is no indication that he expressed his unwillingness or refusal to answer the questions which the trial Court wanted to elucidate. Further, the tenor of the order indicates that issues have already been framed, meaning thereby that the provisions of Order 18 rule 1, CPC, would come into play and at this stage, it will not be appropriate to invoke Order 10 rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, unless some exceptional circumstances exist which also do not warrant from the impugned order. In this back-drop of the facts, the defence of the petitioner-defendant No.1 could not be struck off under the provisions of Order 10 rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the case further as per law. May 23, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE