Kamal Jeet Kaur vs Jaswant Singh And Another on 28 August, 2009

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

                                            Civil Revision No. 2602 of 2008
                                          Date of Decision : August 28, 2009

Kamal Jeet Kaur
                                                                 ....Petitioner
                                   Versus
Jaswant Singh and another

                                                              .....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present :    Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate
             for the petitioner.
             Ms. Balvinder Kaur, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

The present revision has been filed by defendant-Kamal Jeet Kaur

with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by the

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, whereby her application

dated 16.7.2004 filed for reviewing/recalling the order dated 21.10.2003 was

dismissed.

A civil suit was filed by Jaswant Singh-respondent No.1 for

confirmation of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to

sell dated 17.6.2002 in respect of land measuring 4 kanals out of total land

measuring 32 kanals 2 marlas situated in village Mand Dhakran, or, in the

alternative, for the recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest. The

petitioner was served in the said suit for 10.9.2003. She engaged the services

of a Counsel for defending her in the suit and her Counsel filed the memo of
C.R. No. 2602 of 2008 -2-

appearance also. The case was then adjourned for filing of written statement

and power of attorney. On 21.10.2003, the learned trial Court struck off the

defence of the petitioner on account of her failure to file her written statement.

According to the petitioner, she was never served in the suit nor

had any knowledge about the same. It was only on 27.5.2004 when she was

present in the Court complex at Kapurthala that she learnt about the pendency

of the suit. At that time, she was standing outside the Court and hearing the

call of the case whereby her name was called out. Accordingly, she filed an

application dated 16.7.2004 before the learned trial Court for

recalling/reviewing the order dated 21.10.2003. As mentioned above, her said

application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 31.1.2008, which

order has been impugned in the present revision.

Upon notice, only respondent No.2 has put in appearance through

its counsel. However, respondent No.1 has chosen not to appear, despite the

office report that she accepted the summons but refused to sign the report,

therefore, she was deemed to be served.

On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had

prayed for a short adjournment so as to obtain instructions from his clientess

about the facts mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order about the due

service of the petitioner for 10.9.2003 and her signatures appearing on the

summons in the main file. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

petitioner did inspect the file of the learned trial Court and identified her

signatures appearing on the summons vide which she was served for

10.9.2003.

C.R. No. 2602 of 2008 -3-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole plaintiff-

respondent No.1 has not chosen to oppose the present revision filed by the

petitioner wherein the latter is seeking permission to file her written statement

to the suit filed by respondent No.1. The trial of the case has not made any

significant progress so far although issues stand settled. The petitioner is

willing to compensate the plaintiff-respondent adequately for the delay caused

in the trial of the suit.

Without expressing anything on the merits of the case or even

regarding the signatures of the defendant-petitioner in the suit filed by the

plaintiff-respondent but keeping in view the interest of justice requiring the

grant of opportunity to all the parties to the suit to put across their respective

cases, the present revision is disposed of by directing the trial Court to grant

one more opportunity to the defendant-petitioner for filing her written

statement, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. Out of the said costs,

Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority,

Kapurthala, while the remaining costs be paid to the plaintiff-respondent.

                                             ( T.P.S. MANN )
August 28, 2009                                   JUDGE
ajay-1