45 r te ll Civil Revision No73 1 of 2009 1 t 1N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB c0 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No73 1 of 2009 Decided on30 3010 0 Shiv InderSinghKadan and another petitionerss 0 C Versus I Z VijaySinghand others I CORAM2 HONBLE MR JUSTICE KC PURI 08 r12 vm Z Present1 Mr Vikram SinghAdvocate for the Mr VCJindal Advocate for the No KCPURI J This is revision petitionagainstthe order dated 2472008 P and order dated 1770096 Annexure 120 passedby Iearned Additional Civil Judgc6SeniorDivisionl Karnal 111 Civil Suit No852 of 2007 titled as VijaySinghvs Shiv Inder SinghKadan and others Briefly stated that Vijay Singh filed suit for specific of agreementto sell dated22102003 vide endorsementdated 24122004 againstShiv Inder SinghKadan and Ravinder SinghKadan etc 1 Parkash Om 2012.12.20 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 46 CivilRevision No73 1 of 2009 2 11 defendantNos1and 2 beforethe trial Court wcre called upon to file the written statemcnt alongwith other defendants after giving many to file the writtcn statemcnt bydefendants Nol 2 and 4 the case was to 82008 and it was observedby the learned Additional Civil JudgcSenior Division9 that one more opportunity 1S to defcndantNos 1 2 and 4 to Olc wriltcn statemcnt failingwhich 0 thcir shall be deemed to have bcen struck oH The C I case was adjourned to 82008 for filing written statement by the 0 The order dated2472008 has bcen impugned as Annexure Pe I 1 Z On 82008 power of attorney was filed on behalf of Nosand counselfor the plaintiffmovcd an application under Order1 Rule 10 CPC read with order6 Rule 17 CPC to impleadSunny 08 OQ Mohit Singhand Smt Savita Rani as defendant Noso9 to iil 7 the purchaser of suit propertyalongwith defendant No Bala Devi The said applicationwas not to by the counsel for thc Qm and the amendmcntwas allowed and the case was fixed for 21102008 for summoning of newlyadded defcndant NosA6bJ to 4 as detailed above Shri ICKDcswal Advocate filed power of attorneyon behalfof defendant Nos5 and 6 Counsel for dcfendant NosAbl to 46d9 madcstatement that he has no instructions to appear Oll bchalf of thesc It was further observed in that order datcd 1772009 that since defendant Nosl 2 and 4 werc givenIast vide order dated 247 2008 to file the written statcment on 89 2008 and that written has not been flled So the defence of defendantsNo12 and 4 Parkash Om 2012.12.20 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 47 Civil Revision No73 1 of 2009 3 standsstruck off and the case was to 21 309 for Olingwritten statement and replyof application on behalf of defendant No and last for that purposewas granted Thc said order d8ted 1732009 was challengedin Civil Revision N0A585 of 2009 but the same Civil Revision was withdrawn with 1 r libertyto file frcsh reVlSlOn petltionas thc order Annexure I1 was not 0 impugnedThis Court dismissed the pctitionas wilhdrawn with libertyto 0 I flle frcsh rcvision petition C Thcreaftcr thc prcsent revISlOn pctitionhas been filed I challengingorder datcd 2432008 6Anncxure11 9 and order dated Z 1772009 64nncxure P Learned counsel for the revisionist has submittedthat although I vide orderdated 2l72008 6AnncxurcIll it was ordercd thal defendant 08 QO Nos 1 and 2 now rcvisionists were directed to fllc written statement along m2 with defendant NoA4 failingwhich thcir dcfence would be dcemed to Z have been struck off But as per order dalcd 88008 no orderstrikingoff lm the defence was made Rather on 82009 theplaintiffOlcd an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for arraying dcfendantNosA6b9 to 4Kd9 as party lll thc suit and that application was allowcd and ncwly added defendant NosA to 46d1were ordered to bc summoncd It is further submittedthat on 1772009 also the case was adjourned to 2182009 for Slingthe Wntten statement by dcfendant No3 and as such ordcring that dcfcnce of the presentpetitionersstands struck of 111 VlCW of not fil ing the written statement on 892008 is againstthe principlesof natural justicc The defencecould not be struck off on thatdayas the case itself was fixed for Parkash Om 2012.12.20 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 48 0 Civil RcvisionNo731 of 2009 4 written statcment on 21800It is scltlcd law that a party can join the at any stage Oncc thc case has beenadjourned to 21 2009 for filing wrltten statemenl by defcndant No in those circumstances the impugned ordcr is liable to be sct aside In replyto the abovc notcd submissionslearned counsel for the r has supportedthc ordcr o f the trial Court It 1S 0 submittedthat the Code of Civil Proccdurc 6inshort thc CPC9has been 0 I amendedin the year 2002 to curtail thc delayin dccision ofcivil casesThe C period of 90 dayshas bcen providedfor Olingthc Writlen statemcnt The I defendant Nosl and 2 now petitioncrs could not llled writtcn statement Z within 90 daysMoreover thepetitioncrs havc lcfl with no rightsin the suit C propertyinasmuch as theyhave sold thc propcrtyvidc sale deed dated I 23112007 in favour ofdefcndant NosA001 to 46d9Those wcre 08 00 arrayed as respondcnts and thcyappcaredin thc Court but Iateron absented 2 from the Court and the prcsenlpetitionhas bcen ed only to protcctthe Z rightsof vendecs and defcndant NosA6b1to 4c So the Om prayerhasbeen madefor dismissalof thercvision petition I have given my thoughtfulconsidcration to thc rival submissionsmadeby both the sides and havc gone throughthe records of thecase Thc Rules and procedures arc nlcanl to advance the cause of justiceand not to throttlcit Vidc impugncd ordcr Annexurc P dcfendant Nos 2 and 4 were granted one lnorc opportun ity to file the writtcn stateinent on 89008 failingwhich thcir dcfence was orderedto be struck off automaticallyDefcndant Nos 1 and 2 arc the rcvisionist bcforc this Parkash Om 2012.12.20 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 49 1 1 P 1 Civil Revision No73 1 of 2009 5 1 Court liowcvcr from thc perusalof thc said order Annexurc Pl lt 1S rcvealed that the casc was adjourned to 82008 for issuance of notice to No3 as thc plaintiffhasfailed to pay thc ncccssary chargesOn 82009 thc trial Court had not struck off thc dcfcncc of thc present revlslonist as thc plaintiffhunsclfmovcd an applicationundcr Ordcr l Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rulc 17 of the CPC for impleading SunnySingh 0 Mohit Singhand Smt Savita Rani as dcfendant NosA6bto 419 along C3 I with defendantN0343ala Devi l1lc said application wasnot objectcdto by 0 the defendants and the salnc was alIowcd and lhc casc was fixed for I 21102008 for sumlnoning of newlyaddcd dcfcndant NosA6b9 to 46d On Z 21102008 defendant Nos and 6 appcarcdthroughcounsel However Q counscl for defendant Nos409 to 46d9madc statcmcnt that he had no I instructions to appcar on bchalf of lhosc defcndants and thc casc was c5 Ile oo to 1732009 On although it was ordcred that defence 7 of defcndant No 2 and 4 stood struck off automatically as thc Wri ttcn Z statemcnt was not fllcd on 882008 bul againthc casc stood adjourned to Om 212009 for Olingwrl tten stalcmcnt by dcfendant No3 The ordcr datcd 1732009 has also becn impugncd in thc prcscnlrevision petition Thc trial Court has himself adjoumcdthc case for filingthe written slateincnt by rcspondcntNo3 and as such nlakingobservationthat the defenceofthe presentpctitioners and dcfcndantNoA standstruck off on 892008 does not sustain thc tcst of lcgalscruliny lt is settled Iaw that when the Court itsclf is adjourningthc casc for filingwrltten statenlent by dcfendant No3 ln thal casc thc trial Court should not havc ordered lhat dcfcnce of thc pctitioncrsslands struck ofO hc tal Couit could have Parkash Om 2012.12.20 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 50 Civil Revision Nd6731 of 2009 6 P strike offthe defcnceofthe prcsentpetitioners in case the written statement on behalf of all other would havc becn filcd or the defenceof othcr defcndantswould havc bccn struckoff The pctitionersearlicr fl lcd pctitionchallengingthe order Annexure P2 byfllinga reVlSion pctitionNoA585 of 2009 but the same 1 C was withdrawn with libcrtyto challenge the order Annexure Pl also 0 So in thcse circuinstanccsthc ordersAnnexurcs ll and P C3 I vide which the defence of defendantNos l and 2 was struck off stand set C aside andtheyare allowed to filc writtcn statement on paymentofRs0001 I as costs Z hc rcvision petitionstandsdisposcdofaccordingly The petitioners shall file written statcinent within one month I from the dateofreceiptofcopyofthis order 08 CO A copy of this judgmcntbe scnt to the trial Court for strict mZ lm KCP lJRI l JUDGE March301 2010 SV 1 Parkash Om 2012.12.20 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document