C.R. No. 2219 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2219 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 22, 2009 Housing Board Haryana and others …..Petitioners Vs. Smt.Rajni Budhiraja …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anamika, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is preferred against the order dated January 10, 2008, declining permission to the defendant- petitioners to place on record an amended written statement duly verified and signed and simultaneously striking of the defence of the defendant- petitioners as per provisions of Order 8 Rule 7 CPC. C.R. No. 2219 of 2008 [2] Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a written statement had been filed by the defendant- petitioners on May 11, 2007 but the said written statement did not bear the signatures of Estate Manager of the petitioner Board at Rewari, as he was not available. The written statement was without proper verification and signatures. As the counsel for the defendants did not have clear instructions to file written statement as such in the interest of justice, a written statement with proper verification and signatures was necessary to be placed on record. Counsel for the plaintiff- respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for placing on record the amended written statement on the ground that no proper application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC had been filed indicating as to what new pleas were sought to be incorporated by way of amended written statement. He has submitted that the only concession which can be given to the defendant- petitioners is that the proper authority can be permitted to sign and verify the written statement which has already been placed on record. In the absence of proper procedure having not been adopted, the amended written statement should not be permitted to be placed on record. I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. I have also perused the written statement which had originally been filed by the defendants without signatures and verification. The said written statement appears to have been drafted vaguely and in hurry. It is apparent that in order to avoid penal consequences of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, the written statement had been placed C.R. No. 2219 of 2008 [3] on record. Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was also not maintainable to amend a written statement which actually did not exist on the record being without signatures or verification. There appears to be force in the contention of counsel for the plaintiff- respondent that technically the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not properly drafted and no details have been given in the application regarding the pleas which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. I have also gone through the detailed written statement, copy of which has been placed on record as annexure P-4. The order of the trial Court, if appreciated in context to the statutory provisions and legal technicalities, seems to be an appropriate order but considering the said order in context to the framework of the Code of Civil Procedure and the broad principles of the rules of natural justice, is apparently an erroneous order as it had deprived the defendant- petitioners to place on record a properly signed and verified written statement. It is apparent from the conduct of the defendant- petitioners that a casual approach has been adopted in filing an unsigned written statement without verification. Instead of filing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the inherent powers of the trial Court could have been invoked seeking permission to place on record a proper written statement which could have been allowed in the interest of justice. I have carefully considered the objection of the counsel for the respondent that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was not maintainable and I agree with the same but at the same time the defendant- petitioners cannot be penalized on technical grounds as the rules are hand- C.R. No. 2219 of 2008 [4] maiden of administration of justice. The defendant- petitioners can be penalized for their casual approach and causing delay in the adjudication of the matter. In view of the above discussion, in the interest of justice, the revision petition is allowed. The written statement which is titled as amended written statement on behalf of defendants No.1 to 3 is permitted to be taken on record as original written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to the plaintiff. Costs will be paid to the plaintiff on next date of hearing before the trial Court. October 22, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE