Civil Revision No.3723 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3723 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: June 1, 2011 Sat Pal Arora .....Petitioner v. Dharam Pal Goyal and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Mohd.Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 5.1.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala, vide which the defence of petitioner -defendant has been struck off I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for recovery of `36,72,000/-, i.e., `27,00,000/- as principal amount and `9,72,000/- as interest amount was filed by respondent no.1- plaintiff against present petitioner and pro forma respondents. Notice of the same was given to petitioner and pro forma respondents, who put in appearance. Sufficient opportunities were granted by learned trial Court to petitioner and pro forma respondents and, however, written statement was filed only by respondents-defendants no.1 and 3 and no written statement Civil Revision No.3723 of 2011(O&M) -2- was filed by present petitioner and, hence, his defence was struck off by learned trial Court by passing the impugned order, which reads as under:- “Written statement not filed by defendant no.2 despite last opportunity. Perusal of the file reveals that defendant no.2 had put his appearance on 19.3.2010 through his counsel Sh.N.S.Sarwara, Advocate, and a period of more than 9 months has passed but till today no written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant no.2. In these circumstances, I do not find any justification for further grant of opportunity. As such the defence of defendant no.2 is struck off. Now the case is adjourned to 27.1.2011 for consideration on issues.” The only ground taken by the petitioner is that there was also a criminal case pending between the parties and in view of the confusion, the lawyer could not file the written statement in time. However, the said plea cannot be said to be a ground, what to talk of sufficient ground, for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned trial Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. It is pertinent to reproduce Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code'), which reads as under:- “1.Written statement The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: PROVIDED that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty 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, Civil Revision No.3723 of 2011(O&M) -3- but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.” However, even if it is taken that provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code is directory and not mandatory, petitioner-defendant has to make out a sufficient ground for not filing the written statement even after expiry of more than nine months from the date of first appearance. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 1.6.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.3723 of 2011(O&M) -4-