C.R. No. 32 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 32 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 5, 2011 Inderjit Singh through GPA Asha Rani …..Petitioner Vs. Rajinder Kaur …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Anant Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide order dated December 3, 2010, the defence of the defendant-petitioner was struck of under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for having not filed written statement and for having not paid the cost of Rs.500/- imposed upon the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the defendant- petitioner had appeared in the Court on August 28, 2010 and he failed to file C.R. No. 32 of 2011 [2] the written statement within a period of 90 days despite having been given a fair opportunity. I have heard counsel for the defendant- petitioner and considered the nature of the case filed by the plaintiff - respondent. The plaintiff has sought a declaration that she is owner in possession of a property mentioned in the heading of the plaint and that she has also acquired right of ownership to the extent of half share on the basis of a registered Will dated August 27, 1973 executed by her grand-father. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that on November 30, 2010 , the defendant- petitioner was ready with the written statement and intended to file the same in the Court but an application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC was filed by the plaintiff- respondent for striking of the defence of the appellant. Notice of the application was given to the petitioner for December 3, 2010 when the impugned order was passed. Counsel for the defendant- petitioner has shown a copy of the written statement alongwith an affidavit of Asha Rani, the General Power of Attorney holder of the defendant, indicating that the written statement was ready to be filed on behalf of the defendant- petitioner. Taking into consideration the principles of equity, justice and fair play, I am of the opinion that the defendant- petitioner had been negligent in filing the written statement in time but since the civil rights of the parties in property have to be finally adjudicated upon, the defendant- petitioner deserves a fair opportunity to contest the civil suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent. The plaintiff- respondent can be compensated with C.R. No. 32 of 2011 [3] adequate costs which would be sufficient penalty for the defendant- petitioner for being negligent. The petition is disposed of in limine with a direction that the defendant- petitioner will pay a cost of ` 10000/- on February 10, 2011 to the plaintiff- respondent and he will be permitted to file the written statement. The impugned order dated December 3, 2010 is hereby set aside. It is made clear that in case the cost of ` 10000/- is not paid to the plaintiff- respondent, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. January 5, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE