Civil Revision No 6054 of 2009. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No 6054 of 2009. DECIDED ON : 12.11.2009. Kulbir Singh Brar Petitioner. VERSUS Joginder Singh and another. Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mrs. JUSTICE SABINA. Present:- Mr. Balwinder Singh Jolly, Advocate, for the petitioner. SABINA,J. Plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment by way of possession of the shop-cum-0ffice in this case. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendant-petitioner. However, the written statement was not filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period. Consequently, vide impugned order dated 18.8.2009, the defence of the petitioner was struck of. Hence the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the written statement is now ready and the petitioner would file the same before the trial Court on the date fixed i.e. 20.11.2009. Since the petitioner was in Canada, he could not file the written statement within the stipulated period. In Civil Revision No 6054 of 2009. 2 support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Zolba Vs Keshao and others , 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 869 wherein it was held that:- “ 8.Therefore, following the principles laid down in the decision, as noted hereinabove, it would be open to the court to permit the appellant to file his written statement if exceptional circumstances have been made out. It cannot also be forgotten that in an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Therefore, unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC or any procedural enactment should not be construed in a manner, which would leave the Court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. Keeping this principle as laid down by this Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association (supra) in mind and in view of our observations made herein above, we now look into the averments made in the application for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. In the application, it has been stated that on instruction of his counsel in the trial Court, the written statement was not filed within the periods of limitation as the appellant was under bona fide Civil Revision No 6054 of 2009. 3 belief that the written statement shall be filed after the decision of the appeal by the District Court. The written statement was, however, filed and the records of the case were called from his lawyer who has been conducting his case in the appeal pending before the District Court. The facts disclose that the misc. appeal has been filed against an order of injunction before the District Court Chandrapur whereas the suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagbhid. Since the appeal was pending, the records of the appellant were then lying with the lawyer at Chandrapur. Therefore, the file was not available with the lawyer of the appellant at Nagbhid and, therefore, the written statement could not be filed within the period of limitation. Such being the position, in our view, the facts stated would constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the written statement and it has to be taken that the non-availability of records at Nagbhind had prevented the appellant from filing the written statement within the period of limitation which in our view was an exceptional case constituting sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. In this view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the reasoning given Civil Revision No 6054 of 2009. 4 above, we hold that the High Court as well as the trial Court had erred in rejecting the application for condoning the delay in filing the written statement.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant revision petition deserves to be allowed. The written statement could not be filed within the stipulated period because the petitioner had gone to Canada. In case the written statement is allowed to be filed, the lis between the parties would be disposed of on merits. Moreover, the other side can be compensated with costs. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The petitioner is allowed to file written statement on 20.11.2009 i.e. the date fixed before the trial Court subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. 12.11.2009. ( SABINA ) Anoop JUDGE