Civil Revision No.4236 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4236 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 15, 2011 Municipal Council and others .....Petitioners v. Amrik Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.16810-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.16811-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record true and fair translation of Annexure P3. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.4236 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 28.3.2011, Annexure P1, vide which defence of the petitioners-Municipal Council has been struck off. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Civil Revision No.4236 of 2011(O&M) -2- Perusal of various zimni orders passed by learned trial Court shows that appearance was made on behalf of the Municipal Council in this case by counsel on 23.7.2010, however, only memo of appearance was filed by him and vakalatnama was not filed even till the impugned order was passed, which was passed on 28.3.2011. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that vakalatnama could not be filed as no resolution was passed by Municipal Council appointing a lawyer in this case even till 28.3.2011 and hence, written statement could not be filed. Resolution was passed on 7.6.2011. It shows gross negligence and callous attitude on the part of the officers of the Municipal Council, Bassi Pathana. However, it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that written statement is now ready. Copy of the same has also been placed on the file of this Court. It has also been stated that provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing written statement within thirty days or within 90 days from the date of service of summons is only directory in nature and not mandatory. Further contends that public property having considerable value is involved in this case and that only one opportunity may be granted to petitioners to file the written statement. In view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioners 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 the petitioners to file written statement subject to payment of `20,000/- as Civil Revision No.4236 of 2011(O&M) -3- cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Petitioners-Municipal Council is at liberty to hold an enquiry and fix responsibility of the officer/official responsible for not filing the written statement within the stipulated period and to recover the amount of the cost from that defaulting officer/official. At this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are 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 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.” Civil Revision No.4236 of 2011(O&M) -4- However, liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order. 15.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge