Civil Revision No.7363 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7363 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 30, 2011 Bhupinder Singh Sandhu .....Petitioner v. Gurpreet Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal (Takhtupura), Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.28520-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.7363 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') for setting aside order dated 23.8.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Moga, vide which another opportunity to petitioner to file reply to the petition filed by respondent was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Briefly stated, a petition under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship and Wards Act was filed by respondent being mother of Navtej Singh, minor for permission to sell the property belonging to minor Civil Revision No.7363 of 2011(O&M) -2- son Navtej Singh. On notice being issued to general public, application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed by present petitioner requesting for impleading him as a party and as there was no objection for allowing the said application, the same was allowed by learned trial Court vide order dated 19.5.2011 and very short adjournments were granted to petitioner to file reply. As reply could not be filed, defence of petitioner was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 23.8.2011. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent, i.e., mother of minor child has since re-married. Further contends that present petitioner is elder brother of father of the minor child and hence, he wants to watch the interest of the minor child. Further contends that as he resides abroad, reply could not be filed within time. Further contends that petitioner being NRI has appointed general power of attorney on 14.6.2011 and that in view of the same, now general power of attorney could file the reply on behalf of the petitioner and hence, it is contended that one opportunity be granted to petitioner to file reply. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside and learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner to file appropriate reply to the petition filed by the respondent. However, petitioner is burdened with cost of `2,000/- which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondent is 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 Civil Revision No.7363 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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.” However, liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revision petition revived if she feels dissatisfied with this order. 30.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge