C.R. No. 1587 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1587 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 9.3.2010 ... Ashok Kumar Mehta ................Petitioner vs. Jagdish Lal Gupta and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar. Briefly stated, Jagdish Lal Gupta filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 17.4.2003 alleged to have been executed by Som Dev Gupta s/o Tara Chand Gupta in favour of defendants No. 2 to 5 in respect of building, is the result of fraud. Defendants No. 2 to 5 filed written statement and a counter claim. Vide impugned order, the learned trial Court held that since defendants No. 1, 6 and 11 were not given opportunity to file reply to C.R. No. 1587 of 2010 -2- the counter claim, so they were allowed to file the reply to counter claim and application for injunction filed by defendants No. 2 to 5 on 3.3.2010. The said order has been challenged by defendants No. 2 to 5 on the ground that counter claim was filed on 22.2.2007 and the trial Court has allowed the filing of reply to counter claim on 11.1.2010 i.e. after almost about 3 years. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that parliament in its wisdom has amended the CPC, so as to allow a period of 90 days to file the written statement. The written statement has not been filed within the said period. So, by relying upon the authority reported as M/s. Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. and others 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 858, it has been argued that the trial Court is required to give reasoning why the Court allowed the filing of written statement after the statutory period of 90 days, which reasoning is missing in the impugned order. I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. This is a peculiar case, in which defendants No. 2 to 5 have filed counter claim against the co-defendants. Although in the record, it is mentioned that copy supplied, but there is no specific order that copies of the counter claim were supplied to the contesting defendants. The rule and procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. So, far as M/s. Aditya Hotels' case (Supra) is concerned, that authority is distinguishable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case the trial Court was convinced that copies have not C.R. No. 1587 of 2010 -3- been supplied. So, the contesting defendants have no opportunity to file the reply to counter claim, at early stage. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 9.3.2010 Judge chugh