IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 375 of 2010 Date of decision: 16th November, 2010 Sh. Khem Raj and another Petitioner. Versus Sh. Bhim Sen Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 18.9.2010, whereby the right of the defendant to file written statement has been closed because of the fact that 90 days had expired and consequently the defence of the defendant struck of. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- alongwith interest against the present petitioners (herein after referred to as the defendants). The 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 defendants were served for 17.4.2010 and the case was thereafter listed for filing written statement on 6.5.2010. 3. On the said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave. The matter was then adjourned for 19.6.2010. The Presiding Officer again was on leave and the matter was listed on 18.9.2010. According to the petitioner, the written statement was presented on the said date, but the learned Judge refused to accept the same since 90 days had elapsed. 4. Without going into the legalities, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has taken a very hypertechnical view of the matter. If the written statement was ready and the record shows that on two dates the Presiding Officer was on leave, the mere fact that 90 days had elapsed should not have come in the way of defendant to file the written statement. Procedural law is meant to advance justice and not to thwart it. Why should the defendant deprived of his right to file written statement, when it was ready only, on the ground that 90 days had elapsed, when the record shows that on two dates the Presiding Officer was on leave. This court cannot loose sight of the fact that when the Presiding Officer is on leave, normally no actual work is done in the presence of the Reader and cases are adjourned for proper orders. 5. Keeping in view the past practice, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by learned trial court is 3 unduly harsh and the same is accordingly set aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 24.11.2010, the date already fixed, on which date the written statement shall be filed by the petitioner. No orders as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge November, 16, 2010 (KRS)