Amrik Singh And Another vs Bhoora Singh And Others on 20 May, 2009

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
                                          C.R. No. 2894 of 2009 (O&M)
                                          Date of Decision: 20.5.2009
Amrik Singh and another
                                                      ....Petitioners
            Versus
Bhoora Singh and others
                                                      ...Respondents

CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:- Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate
for the petitioners.

RAJESH BINDAL J

The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated March 5,
2009 whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 8
Rule 1 CPC for striking off defence of respondents/defendants on account of
delay in filing of written statement was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some of the
defendants were served and the counsel appeared for them on March 2, 2007.
Inspite of that the written statement was not filed within the period prescribed in
CPC i.e. 90 days. The application filed by the petitioners for striking off defence
of 28 defendants for whom the counsel had appeared on March 2, 2007 was
wrongly dismissed as on account of non filing of written statement within 90
days, their evidence was liable to be struck off.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any
merit in the submission made. In the suit filed by the petitioners there are 92
defendants. Service of 28 defendants was complete and they were represented
by counsel on March 2, 2007. Service of other defendants was completed by
way of publication or otherwise only on April 21, 2008. Written statement on
behalf of 29 defendants was filed on June 5, 2007 and some of the defendants
were proceeded exparte. A perusal of the impugned order shows that service of
defendant No. 56 was still not complete as he was reported to have died and his
LRs are to be brought on record.

Considering the aforesaid fact when service of all the defendants
was not even complete, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by
learned Court below in taking on record the written statement filed on behalf of
29 defendants though it was beyond a period of 90 days.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.

                                                    (RAJESH BINDAL)
20.5.2009                                                 JUDGE
Reema