Civil Revision No.5238 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5238 of 2011 Date of Decision:30.08.2011 Tirlok Singh ......Petitioner Versus Ranjit Singh Brar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Ranjit Singh Brar, Proprietor of M/s Beguwala Trading Company-respondent- plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Tirlok Singh son of Kehar Singh-petitioner-defendant(for short “the defendant”) for recovery of `3,02,491/- (i.e. `2,14,566/- Principal amount + `87,925/- with future interest). 2. As the petitioner-defendant did not file the written statement, despite last opportunity, therefore, his defence was struck off by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 05.05.2010(Annexure P-2). 3. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-2) of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendant preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondent- plaintiff, in order to save him from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when he Civil Revision No.5238 of 2011 2 can well be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect. 6. As is clear from the impugned order that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court, to struck off the defence was that, the defendant did not file the written statement, despite last opportunity. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation between the parties, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the defendant, to file the written statement, subject to the costs. The filing of written statement is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties. If the opportunity to file the written statement and to contest the case is not granted to the defendant, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-plaintiff, particularly when, he can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the defendant, to file his written statement. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiff. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for strict compliance. August 30, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5238 of 2011 3 C.M.No.20971-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5238 of 2011 Present: Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. August 30, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE