Civil Revision No. 6175 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6175 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 5th , 2011 Smt. Neelam Wadhwa .... Petitioner Versus Smt. Urmila Devi and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Y.D.Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This revision petition has been brought by defendant No. 2 under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 7.9.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which the defence of the petitioner has been struck off on her inability to file written statement and reply to the application within the time of 90 days. The impugned order shows that the case was fixed for 7.9.2011 for notice of the suit to defendants No.1 and 3 as well as for filing written statement and reply to the stay application on behalf of defendant No.2. It also reveals that service of notice upon defendants No.1 and 3 was not effected for that day also Civil Revision No. 6175 of 2011 2 .. and the case had been adjourned to 7.11.2011 for service of notice upon defendants No.1 and 3. With this background, learned trial court has passed the impugned order striking off the defence of defendant No.2 on her failure to file written statement and reply to the stay application. Learned trial court has noticed that more than 90 days have expired and despite that the petitioner has failed to file written statement and reply to the stay application. Leaned trial court found no more adjournment for this purpose to be justified. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, defendant No.2 has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Y.D.Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The fact that the suit was pending for effecting service upon defendants No.1 and 3 would make it all the more a case for further adjournment of the case for filing of the written statement and reply to the stay application by defendant No.2. The purpose of prescribing the period of 90 days in CPC for filing the written statement is to cut delays in the disposal of the civil suits. However, when defendants No.1 and 3 were yet to be served, a little laxity could not be held unpardonable on the part of defendant No.2 in filing the written statement and reply to the stay application. If the defence of defendant No.2 is struck off and she is not to participate in the further proceedings of the case by not setting up a defence, it would amount to injustice to her. This would Civil Revision No. 6175 of 2011 3 .. amount to condemning her unheard. When the case was being adjourned for service of notice of suit upon defendants No.1 and 3, defendant No.2 could be granted one more opportunity by mentioning that it would be the last opportunity, so that she could get notice of the fact that the court would not be granting any further adjournment for the purpose. So, striking off the defence without granting last opportunity to defendant No.2 to file the written statement and reply, would be a harsh measure not even conducive to early disposal of the suit. In these circumstances, I find the impugned order to be unsustainable and accepting the revision petition I set aside the impugned order and direct the trial court to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner/defendant No.2 to file written statement and reply to the stay application. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 5th, 2011 som