C.M.No.31662-63-II of 2010 in C.R. No. 4957 of 2010 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.M.No.31662-63-II of 2010 in C.R. No. 4957 of 2010 Date of decision: January 20,2011 Sunil Jain ..Petitioner. Versus Inderjit ..Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The petitioner/defendant (for brevity,”defendant”) is a travel agent and he was stated to have cheated and took an amount of ` One lac from Inderjit, respondent/plaintiff(for short,”plaintiff”) on 15.1.2008, in the garb of sending him to Australia. The petitioner neither sent him to Australia nor returned his amount. The cheque bearing No.087076 dated 1.6.2008, for an amount of ` one lac, issued by him, in favour of the plaintiff, was dishonoured vide bank memo. dated 25.10.2008 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient” Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of ` One Lac along with interest in this context. 2. The defendant appeared in the trial Court through his counsel Rajesh Khanna Advocate on 9.11.2009 and case was adjourned to 28.1.2010 for filing the written statement. He did not file the written statement and case was again adjourned to 30.3.2010 for filing the written statement. On that date, again position remained the same and on the request of counsel, last opportunity was granted to the defendant to file the written statement on or before 29.4.2010. On that date, again written statement was not filed. Another adjournment was C.M.No.31662-63-II of 2010 in C.R. No. 4957 of 2010 2 granted for filing the written statement on 7.5.2010. On 7.5.2010, again as written statement was not filed, therefore, the trial Court struck his defence and the case was again adjourned to 27.5.2010. On that date, the following order was passed:- “Written statement not filed by defendant No.1. Request for adjournment is made. Defendant No.1 has availed numerous opportunities but failed to file the same. As such, the court finds no justification to further adjourn the case for this purpose only. So, defence of defendant No.1 stands struck off. Now to come up on 2.6.2010 for evidence of plaintiff.” 3. The defendant challenged the impugned order (Annexure P-2) by way of instant Civil Revision. Although more than sufficient opportunities were granted to the defendant to file the written statement by the trial Court but still taking into consideration his illness, one opportunity was granted to the defendant to file the written statement by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2010 rendered in Civil Revision No. 4957 of 2010. The operative part of which is as under:- “ Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record, to my mind, although more than sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the defendant to file the written statement, but still taking into consideration, the explanation put forth by him for not filing the written statement on 7.5.2010, owing to his hospitalization for operation, to me, it would be expedient in the interest of justice, to grant him one last opportunity to file his written statement in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in this respect. I also exempt the issuance of notice to the respondent-plaintiff in order to avoid his counsel fee and litigation expenses in the High Court and the delay in disposal of the suit for recovery filed by him, particularly when the C.M.No.31662-63-II of 2010 in C.R. No. 4957 of 2010 3 plaintiff can well be compensated by adequate compensatory costs. “ 4. Again instead of filing the written statement, the defendant has filed the present petition for extension of time for filing the written statement. 5. As is evident from the record that on the one hand, the defendant has cheated the poor plaintiff and illegally obtained an amount of ` One Lac to send him to Australia. He neither send him to Australia nor returned the amount. So much so, the cheque issued by the defendant in this relevant connection was also dishonoured, which necessitated the plaintiff to file suit for recovery against him. 6. From the sequence narrated here-in-above, I am satisfied that defendant is intentionally avoiding to file the written statement in order to delay disposal of the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, to my mind, as no ground for further extension for filing the written statement is made out, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. January 20,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE