Civil Revision No.5172 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-18.8.2010 Shri Ram Investments Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Jumma son of Sitab Khan ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sanjay S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Jumma son of Sitab Khan respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of mandatory injunction with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining M/s Shri Ram Finance Company petitioner-defendant (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendant-Company”) from forcibly taking the possession of the truck in question. 2. In the wake of notice, the defendant-Company appeared in the trial Court and sought repeated adjournments for filing the written statement, but the same was not filed despite last opportunity. Ultimately, the case was adjourned to 10.2.2010 for filing the written statement. The position remained the same on that day and the trial Court struck the defence of the defendant-Company, vide impugned order (Annexure P1), which is in the following manner:- “Despite last opportunity and availing of umpteen opportunities since 27.05.08, the defendant has not filed W.S. and reply to stay application. Defence is struck off. Adjourned to 25.08.10 for PW.” 3. The petitioner-defendant did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and filed the present revision petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and Civil Revision No.5172 of 2010 2 having gone through the record, in this manner, although it is true that more than sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the defendant-Company by the trial Court to file its written statement, but still, taking into consideration the nature of the litigation and the explanation put forth by it, to me, it would be expedient in the interest of justice, to grant it one last opportunity to file its written statement in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in this respect. I also hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondent-plaintiff in order to avoid his counsel fee and litigation expenses in the High Court and the delay in disposal of his suit, particularly when the plaintiff can well be compensated by adequate compensatory costs. 5. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is accepted. The petitioner-defendant is permitted one month's time from today to file its written statement in the trial Court, subject to the payment of Rs.11000/-, as compensatory cost to the plaintiff. The payment of cost would be a condition precedent for filing the written statement. The trial Court is directed to ensure that this compensatory cost is personally paid to the respondent-plaintiff and not to anybody else. Thus, the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 6. Office is directed to send the copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for compliance. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 18.8.2010 Judge AS