Civil Revision No.8307 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.8307 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.12.2010 Parkash Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus Sukhpreet Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.10.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, whereby opportunity to file written statement was closed on the ground that despite of sufficient opportunities being granted defendants/petitioners have failed to file written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that written statement shall be filed within such time as fixed by this Court and could not be filed within the time fixed by the trial Court because of the mis- understanding between the defendants and their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that written statement is now ready. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kailash Vs. Nankhu and others, (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 480 while interpreting provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC has observed that provisions of Rule Civil Revision No.8307 of 2010 -2- 1 of Order 8 CPC are not mandatory but are directive and procedural and in appropriate cases on sufficient cause being shown for not-filing written statement within stipulated period, Court has every power to take on record written statement beyond the stipulated period. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Prem Lata Vs. Ram Sarup reported in 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 423 placing reliance on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co-op. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur has held that matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission without any notice to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. In the opinion of this Court, present matter can be disposed of at the admission stage without any notice to the respondents. This Court is of the further opinion that issuing notice to the respondents shall cause unnecessary delay in the disposal of the matter pending before the learned Trial Court, hence, this Court proposes to decide this petition without notice to the respondents. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind, the golden rule that none should be given walk over and lis between the parties, as far as possible, should be decided at its own merit after affording sufficient opportunities to both the parties to place on record pleadings, evidence and material, I direct that defendants/petitioners shall file written statement within four weeks from today and shall pay Rs.5,000/- as cost within four weeks from today to the plaintiff. On filing of written statement, learned trial Court Civil Revision No.8307 of 2010 -3- shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. In view of the above, order impugned stands quashed. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. If respondents feel aggrieved from this order, they shall be at liberty to move this Court for recalling of the order. (Alok Singh) Judge December 20, 2010 R.S.