Civil Revision No. 2208 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2208 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.07.2010 Mohinder Paul and another ....Petitioners Versus Ahmed Din ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.2.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, vide which the application moved by the petitioners for permission to file written statement, stands declined by holding petitioner to be negligent. The plaintiff/petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioners withdrew the suit, after filing of written statement along with counter-claim. The counter-claim was to be treated as an independent suit, therefore, the learned Court proceeded with the counter-claim, and the defendant/respondent led evidence in support of the counter-claim, the witnesses examined were duly cross-examined by the petitioner. It was at a much later stage that the petitioners realised, that they had not filed reply to the counter-claim. The petitioners on Civil Revision No. 2208 of 2010 (O&M) -2- realising their mistake moved an application for permission to contest the counter-claim by filing written statement, which stands dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that the order is very harsh, as the right of the petitioners to contest the counter-claim on merit stands denied, due to the lapse on the part of the counsel in not advising the petitioners that the written statement was required to be filed to the counter-claim. It was on account of lack of advise that the reply was not filed in time. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, was that the petitioners be permitted to file the written statement, so that the matter could be adjudicated finally between the parties. There is no dispute, that the petitioners have been negligent, but at the same time negligence is on the part of the counsel in not advising the petitioners, therefore, negligence of the counsel which is writ large could not be a ground to dismiss the application, as the respondent could be compensated for the inconvenience. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, the petitioners are allowed to file written statement to the counter-claim, within 15 days of the receipt of certified copy of this order. However, this shall be subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 29, 2010 R.S.