C.R.No.4298 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4298 of 2011 Date of decision: 22.7.2011 Om Parkash ….Petitioner Vs. Ajay Kumar and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Defendant-petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.9.2005 (P.1) whereby his defence has been struck off and the subsequent order dated 6.11.2007 (P.2) passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jalalabad vide which his application for seeking to file written statement has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a Civil Suit No.232-1 dated 17.12.2004 for possession of land measuring 16 kanal described in the head note of the plaint on the basis of title. Due to non-filing of written statement, the defence of the petitioner was struck off by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.9.2005 and the case was adjourned for further proceedings from time to time. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file written statement but the same has also been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 6.11.2007, hence the present petition. C.R.No.4298 of 2011 #2# Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order is wholly erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further argued that the defendant-petitioner has a very good case on merits and in case he is not allowed to file written statement, he shall suffer a great prejudice and will be condemned unheared. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed on 17.12.2004 and despite service by way of munadi, neither the defendant-petitioner appeared personally nor through counsel. Consequently, he was proceeded ex parte on 6.5.2005 but the order sheet shows that at a later stage, his counsel appeared on that very day and the case was adjourned to 14.6.2005 for filing written statement. On 14.6.2005, written statement was not filed and the case was adjourned to 9.8.2005 subject to payment of Rs.100/- as costs. On 9.8.2005 also, the defendant-petitioner did not file the written statement and again the costs of Rs.150/- was imposed and the case was adjourned to 20.9.2005. On 20.9.2005 also, the position remained the same as neither the costs were paid nor the written statement was filed resulting into passing of the impugned order. It seems that the case was adjourned from time to time for further proceedings and after a period of almost two years, an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file written statement, which was opposed by the plaintiff-respondents inter alia on the ground that order dated 20.9.2005 has become final as no revision or appeal has been preferred and the plaintiff-respondents have C.R.No.4298 of 2011 #3# already completed their evidence and the case is fixed for final arguments. In these circumstances, learned trial Court has dismissed the application in view of the provisions of Section 35-B of CPC. Admittedly, as submitted in paragraph 10 of the present petition, the case was fixed for final arguments before the learned trial Court for 19.7.2011 and the present petition has been filed on 15.7.2011. The petitioner-defendant was very well aware about the passing of order dated 20.9.2005 as well as subsequent order dated 6.11.2007 and the plaintiffs have already completed their evidence. Admittedly, the plaintiff- respondents had put in appearance before the learned trial Court way back on 6.5.2005 but did not chose to file the written statement for the reasons best known to him. The plea raised by the counsel for the defendant- petitioner that his client has a very good case on merit is of no consequences as he has already been afforded sufficient opportunities by the learned trial Court for filing the written statement but he deliberately avoided the same. Thus, the present petition is absolutely misuse of the process of the Court and just to delay the disposal of the civil suit, which is pending since 17.12.2004. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jalalabad warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. July 22, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE