C.R.No.6968 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6968 of 2010 Date of Order: 9.5.2011 Devinder Kaur .....Petitioner Vs. Jatinder Jeet and others .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 7. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Defendant No.4-petitioner by filing the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangrur whereby her defence has been struck off for not filing of written statement within the stipulated time. Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents being the legal heirs i.e Widow and sons and daughter of Amar Chand (since deceased) had filed a civil suit for declaration that they are entitled to receive entire amount deposited by said Amar Chand (since deceased)- Account holder of Senior Citizen Saving Scheme Account No.419 in the Head Post Office, Sangrur with further prayer for permanent injunction restraining official defendant Nos.1 to 3 to release any part of payment from the aforesaid account maintained by deceased Amar Chand to defendant No.4-petitioner. C.R.No.6968 of 2010 #2# Upon notice, defendant No.4-petitioner on first appearance was given time to file his written statement on 8.7.2010, 16.7.2010, 10.8.2010 and ultimately on 27.8.2010 subject to payment of costs as Rs.500/- with last opportunity for 13.9.2010. Even on 13.9.2010, neither written statement was filed nor the cost paid on behalf of defendant No.4- petitioner, therefore, her defence was struck off by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order observing that the statutory period of 90 days had already expired. Hence the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that filing of the written statement within the extended period of stipulated 90 days is not mandatory but has been held to be directory by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. It is, thus, contended that in the facts of the case, the petitioner having been laid up in bed due to suffering from acute backache could not instruct her counsel to file the written statement on 13.9.2010 and is therefore, entitled to one last opportunity to file a written statement and defend her case on merits as rules of procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly strucked off the defence for not filing of the written statement within the extended stipulated time and the same does not suffer from any non-application of mind warranting interference by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. A perusal of record shows that defendant Nos.1 to 3 had been proceeded against exparte on 8.7.2010, however, on the same day, counsel C.R.No.6968 of 2010 #3# caused appearance on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 as well as defendant No.4 and they were directed to file written statement. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed their reply on 16.7.2010 and the hearing was deferred to 10.8.2010 for filing written statement and reply to stay application on behalf of defendant No.4 as well as for filing reply to stay application by defendant Nos.1 to 3. On 10.8.2010, defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed their reply to the stay application whereas while adjourning the matter for 27.8.2010, the opportunity was again granted to defendant No.4 for filing written statement as well as reply to the stay application. Again on 27.8.2010, last opportunity was afforded to the petitioner-defendant No.4 to do the needful for 13.9.2010 subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs. But neither written statement nor any cost filed resulting into passing of the impugned order dated 13.9.2010 by the learned trial Court since the extended statutory period for filing the written statement had also expired. Petitioner has relied upon the Medical Certificate (P.2) wherein the Doctor has advised her rest from 9.9.2010 to 16.9.2010 on her suffering from acute backache. No serious dispute has been raised on behalf of the defendants-respondents qua the genuineness of the Medical Certificate and, therefore, it appears that the petitioner had a valid reason for not being able to attend the proceedings of the Court and filing written statement in court on 13.9.2010. It is further evident that the petitioner is claiming her right to the amount lying deposited in the account of Amar Chand (since deceased) being her nominee. Still further a perusal of the record reveals that the case before the trial Court is still at the beginning stage and the suit/matter shall be finally decided after leading of evidence by both the sides. In my C.R.No.6968 of 2010 #4# opinion, if the petitioner is not provided an opportunity to file the written statement at this stage, she shall suffer irreparable loss. Moreover the respondents-defendants can be compensated by payment of adequate costs for the inconvenience being caused to them. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, present petition is allowed. Order dated 13.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangrur is set aside and the petitioner is granted one opportunity to file written statement within two weeks from today subject to payment of Rs.5000/- i.e Rs.1,000/- to be paid to each of four plaintiffs by way of demand draft and also Rs.1000/- as cost to be deposited with Punjab State Legal Services Authority. May 09, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE