IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 134 of 2011. Decided on: 21.12.2011. __________________________________________________________ Vijay Ram s/o Sh. Ghungar, r/o village & P.O. Thuran, Tehsil Jhandutta, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. … Petitioner. Versus 1. Rudra Giri Mahadev Ashram/Shiv Mandir VPO Thuran, Tehsil Jhandutta, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. through its Manager/Mahant/Mohtmeen Baba Arvind Doss Sadhu Bairagi aged 82 years, r/o Vill. & P.O. Thuran, Tehsil Jhandutta, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. 2. Sada Ram s/o Sh. Munshi Ram 3. Mahant Ram s/o Sh. Chotta Ram 4. Sant Ram s/o Sh. Lal Man 5. Kewal Singh s/o Sh. Ram Swaroop 6. Bal Mukand s/o Sh. Prabhu Ram 7. Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Swaroop All r/o village & P.O. Thuran, Tehsil Jhandutta, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. … Respondents. Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for quashing the order dated 13.4.2011 passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. in CMA No. 235/6 of 09 and for appropriate orders. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). CMP (M) No. 1405 of 2011: None appears for respondents No. 2 to 5 and 7, though served. 2. Heard. The application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, is allowed in view of the grounds stated therein. Consequently, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. 3. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 CR No. 134 of 2011: 4. Heard. Admit. 5. In an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) filed by the non- applicant/contesting respondent No.1 herein against the applicant/petitioner and non-applicants/proforma respondents No. 2 to 7 herein, the defence on behalf of the respondents was struck off by the learned Court below vide order dated 13.4.2011, which is as under:- “13.4.2011 Present: Sh. V.S. Chandel, Advocate for the applicant. Sh.L.R.Verma,Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4, 6, 8 & 9. Respondent No.5 and 7 deleted. Reply on behalf of respondent not filed. It was last opportunity. But despite that respondent not filed reply. Hence evidence of respondent is struck off. Now to come up for evidence of the applicant on 30.7.2011. Sd/- (Ranjeet Singh) Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1, Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, (H.P.)” 6. The impugned order dated 13.4.2011 is challenged on behalf of the applicant/petitioner mainly on the ground that the same wrongly records that it was ‘evidence’ on behalf of the respondents before the learned trial Court which was struck off instead of their ‘defence’ having been struck off. Such an objection is in the domain of a mere technicality. However, keeping in view the consequences that may ensue in an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC, which also include civil imprisonment, I am satisfied that it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice to afford one more opportunity to the applicant/petitioner to contest the said application by filing reply thereto. 3 7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the applicant/petitioner is afforded one more opportunity for filing reply to CMP No. 235/6 of 2009 under Order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC pending trial in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Court No.1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. The applicant/petitioner through counsel is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 10.1.2012. Thereafter, he shall file reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC within a fortnight. The learned trial Court shall proceed further in the matter from that stage onwards. However, it shall be subject to costs of Rs. 500/- to be paid by the applicant/petitioner herein and the same shall go to contesting respondent No.1 herein, through its Manager/Mahant/ Mohtmeen. 8. The revision petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. December 21, 2011. (cr)