IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4815 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 8, 2011. Pawan Kumar and others. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Mandir Bala Sundri of village Basaulan through Mohatmim Harnam Gir and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.K.Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 29.04.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide which defence of petitioners-defendants was ordered to be struck off on account of non-filing of written statement by petitioners-defendants. CR No.4815 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a civil suit was filed against present petitioners-defendants by respondents-plaintiffs for declaration that plaintiffs are the only Mohatmim of Mandir of Bala Sundri of village Basaulan and that the mutation of inheritance is liable to be sanctioned correctly in the name of plaintiffs through Mohatmim Harnam Gir with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Counsel appeared for the defendants No.1 to 3 before learned trial Court on 08.02.2010 and requested a date to file Vakalatnama and written statement. Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of defendants No.1 to 3 on 08.02.2010. Vakalatnama was already filed on behalf of defendant No.4 on 08.01.2010, whereas Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of defendants No.6 and 7 on 25.03.2010. However, it is not clear that as to for which date they were served. On 25.03.2010, case was adjourned by learned trial Court for filing of written statement on behalf of defendants No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 on 29.04.2010. The impugned order was passed on 29.04.2010 by learned trial Court, which reads as under:- “Case received by transfer. It be checked and registered. Today, the case is fixed for filing of written statement. Written statement not filed. An adjournment is requested by the learned counsel for the defendant, which is opposed. Heard. The perusal of the case file reveals that the defendants no.1 to 4, 6 and 7 have already availed an ample opportunity for filing written statement. Under these circumstances this court finds no justification for granting further opportunity to the defendants 2 CR No.4815 of 2010 no.1 to 4, 6 and 7 for filing written statement. Hence, the request made by the learned counsel for the defendants no.1 to 4, 6 and 7 is hereby declined and the defence is hereby struck off. Defendant No.5 has not been served. Fresh notice be issued to the defendants no.5 for 30.08.2010 through ordinary process as well as registered post. Postal charges be filed immediately.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that defendants No.1 to 4 are sons of defendant No.5 and defendants No.6 and 7 are daughters. It is further contended that defendant No.5 was seriously ill and hence, last opportunity was requested for filing written statement on that ground only and that lateron defendant No.5 expired on account of illness and hence, it is contended that one opportunity be granted to petitioners-defendants to file written statement. In view of these facts, sufficient ground is made out by petitioners-defendants for granting one opportunity to file written statement. Hence, the impugned order, Annexure P2 striking off the defence of defendants No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to defendants to file written statement. However, petitioners-defendants are burdened with costs of `1,000/- which shall be a condition precedent. The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 8, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3