Punjab-Haryana High CourtSanatan Dharam Sabha Barnala Etc vs Jagdish Raj Kansal And Ors on 13 November, 2013Mamta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT           2013.11.15 12:23
                                                     I attest to the accuracy and
              CHANDIGARH                             integrity of this document



        CR NO.6871 OF 2013
        DECIDED ON 13.11.2013

SANATAN DHARAM SABHA BARNALA ETC. ........Petitioners

v/s.

JAGDISH RAJ KANSAL AND ORS.           ..........Respondents


CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH

Present: Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate
         for the petitioners.

S.P.BANGARH,J (ORAL)Petitioners are defendants nos. 1 to 3 respectively

before the trial Court.   Respondent no.1 filed suit against

them, as well as, against respondents nos. 2 to 10. The case

was fixed for filing of the written statement by the

petitioners on 20.04.2012. On that date, the petitioners

could not file written statement and even they were not

present on that day. Even so, their defence was struck off.It is the case of the petitioners that when they were

not present before the trial Court on 20.04.2012, their

defence could not be struck off and only, they could be

ordered to be proceeded against exparte. So, it has been

prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. Besides,

on 20.04.2012, all the other defendants had not filed their

written statements and even the case was fixed for service

of defendants nos. 4,9 and 12.MamtaCR NO.6871 OF 2013        -2-                           2013.11.15 12:23I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentLearned counsel for the petitioners contended that

this harsh order should not have been passed on 20.04.2012

especially when the case was being adjourned for service of

defendants nos. 4,9 and 12.There is force in the contentions of the learned

counsel for the petitioners.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the

case, notice of this revision petition need not be issued to

the respondent no.1, who if felt aggrieved from this order

may approach this Court through appropriate petition for

recall of this order. Even, if the notice is issued, the disposal

of the suit will be delayed.One thing is very much certain from the order dated

20.04.2012, that the petitioners, who are defendants nos. 1

to 3 respectively before the trial Court, were not marked

present. The only appropriate remedy open to the trial Court

was to order exparte proceedings against them. In their

absence, their defence could not be struck off. Besides, the

case was at the stage of service of defendants nos. 4,9 and12. So, when the case was adjourned for their service, to

the next date, they could be permitted to file written

statement. So, impugned order is improper and illegal and is

liable to be set aside.Resultantly, the revision succeeds and is, hereby,MamtaCR NO.6871 OF 2013      -3-                          2013.11.15 12:23I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentallowed; impugned order is set aside and the petitioners are

allowed to file written statement.It may be mentioned here that on 10.07.2013, an

application for production of documents was filed by the

petitioners and its copy was supplied to the opposite counsel

and the case was adjourned for filing reply to that

application. It appears that on that day, the petitioners were

not aware of the impugned order. So, this application that

has been moved by the petitioners for production of

documents be disposed of. When this application is disposed

of only one adjournment be given to the petitioners to file

written statement.(13.11.2013)                            (S.P.BANGARH)
mamta                                      JUDGE