IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 420 of 2010. Date of decision: 9.3.2011 Allian Duhangan Hydro Electric Project Prini …Petitioner. Versus Yog Raj …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate vice Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 6th October, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kullu whereby the application filed by the petitioner-company to file written statement after expiry period of 90 days has been rejected and the defence of the petitioner-company has been struck off. 2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner- company did not file the written statement within 90 days and vide order dated 1st October, 2010 its 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 defence was struck off by the order of the Court. Thereafter the petitioner-company filed an application in which it is stated that copies of the plaint were misplaced by its staff and therefore this written statement could not be prepared in time. It would be pertinent to mention that along with this application the petitioner-company had also annexed a copy of the written statement. This prayer has not been accepted by the learned Trial Court. 3. It would be pertinent to mention that the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,17,874/- and in case the petitioner-company is not permitted to contest the suit, it would virtually amounts to decreeing the claim made by the plaintiffs without hearing the parties. No doubt, the petitioner-company has been remiss in not filing the written statement in time, but in my considered view the other side can be compensated by way of costs and no party should be deprived of its right to contest a case on merits. 4. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs which shall be paid by the petitioner-company to the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court. The orders dated 1.10.2010 & 6.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Kullu are quashed and set aside. 3 The written statement which has been filed shall be taken on record and thereafter the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No costs. 9th March, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (Krn Guleria) Judge