In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4290 of 2009 Date of Decision:September 07, 2009 H.S.I.D.C. ---Petitioner versus Ramehar and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.`Gaurav Goyal,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 6 to 11 *** SABINA J. Petitioner–H.S.I.D.C. has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned orders dated 22.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat (Annexure P-1). Ramehar and others had sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notice of the same was issued to the respondent. Vide the impugned order dated 22.4.2009, the defence of respondent No. 3 (present petitioner) was struck off as it had failed to Civil Revision No. 4290 of 2009 -2- file its written statement despite sufficient opportunity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file its written statement. Now the case is listed for 14.9.2009 before the Reference Court for ex parte evidence of respondents- petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, has submitted that already sufficient opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to file its written statement but it had failed to do so. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed as the other side can be compensated with costs. In case the petitioner is allowed to file the written statement, the lis between the parties would be decided on merits. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is allowed to file its written statement on or before 14.9.2009, the date fixed before the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/-. Thereafter learned Additional District Judge shall proceed further with the case in accordance with law. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 07, 2009 PARAMJIT