Civil Revision No.5159 of 2011(O&M) -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5159 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 26, 2011 Balwan Singh .....Petitioner v. Santosh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.20744-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5159 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 20.7.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Gohana, vide which defence of petitioner-defendant was struck off. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is only directory in nature and not mandatory. It is further contended that first date fixed for filing of written statement was 22.3.2010 and, however, as the Court was on leave on that date, the same was adjourned to 18.5.2010, on Civil Revision No.5159 of 2011(O&M) -2 which date also written statement could not be filed and, however, the case was adjourned for 20.7.2010. On 20.7.2010, written statement could not be filed as nephew of petitioner-defendant had expired. It is also contended that earlier written statement was not prepared by counsel engaged by the petitioner in the trial Court, though all the documents were supplied to him and hence, it is contended that petitioner should not be penalised for the fault of the lawyer. He has also placed reliance upon Nasero and others v. Alisher, The Punjab Law Reporter (2011-3) 594. Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to file written statement and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner to file written statement subject to payment of ` 10,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued 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. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:- “ We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to Civil Revision No.5159 of 2011(O&M) -3 the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner- Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” However, liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revision petition revived if she feels dissatisfied with this order. 26.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge