Civil Revision No.5535 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5535 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.09.2011 Sukkhi and others ......Petitioners Versus Smt.Ramrati and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Jangvir Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the facts, relevant for disposal of the instant revision petition and emanating from the record are that, Ramrati daughter of Netram and others-respondent-plaintiffs(for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against Sukkhi and others-petitioner-defendants(for short “the defendants”). 2. As, written statement was not filed, despite repeated adjournments, therefore, the trial Court struck off the defence of the defendants, by means of impugned order dated 29.07.2009(Annexure P/1). 3. The application for recalling/setting aside the order(Annexure P/1) filed by the defendants was also dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 25.04.2011(Annexure P/2). 4. Aggrieved by the decisions(Annexures P/1 and P/2) of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendants preferred the present revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to respondent- Civil Revision No.5535 of 2011 2 plaintiffs, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant context. Be that as it may, but still they would be at liberty to file the petition to review this order, without accepting the costs, if so desire. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect. 7. As is clear from the impugned orders that, the main grounds which appear to have been weighed with the trial Court to struck off the defence was that, the defendants did not file the written statement, despite repeated adjournments and the trial Court has no power to review the earlier orders. 8. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the defendants, to file the written statement, subject to payment of costs. The filing of written statement is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties. If the opportunity to file the written statement and to contest the case is not granted to the defendants, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to their case. In this manner, the trial Court committed a material, procedural irregularity and illegality and the impugned orders cannot be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-plaintiffs, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the defendants, to file their written statement and to participate in the proceedings of the suit. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid Civil Revision No.5535 of 2011 3 by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiffs. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. September 12, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE