C.R. No.7240 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.7240 of 2009
Date of decision:08.12.2009
M/s Mangal Dass Dev Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
Subash Chander and others ...Respondents
Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. P. S Paul, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
Petitioner is respondent No.2 in the claim petition filed by
respondent No.1 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Vide impugned order dated 26.10.2009, learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Ropar (in short, the Tribunal) has struck off the
defence of the petitioner herein for not filing the written statement.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the case file.
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner
herein put in appearance before the Tribunal on 10.08.2009 and did
not file written statement till 26.10.2009, the date on which defence of
the petitioner was struck off. It has been observed in the impugned
order that even formal request for extending time to file written
statement was not made on behalf of the petitioner herein before the
Tribunal.
C.R. No.7240 of 2009 -2-
It appears that the Tribunal has passed the impugned
order keeping in view the amended provision of Order 8 Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C), which lays down that the
defendant shall, within 30 days from the date of service of summon
on him, present a written statement in his defence provided that
where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said
period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other
day as may be specified by the Court for reasons to be recorded in
writing, but it shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service
of summons. Perusal of this provision reveals that written statement
has to be filed within 30 days of the service of summons, but the said
time can be extended upto 90 days.
In the instant case, Tribunal struck off the defence of the
petitioner herein even before the expiry of period of 90 days after the
petitioner herein put in appearance before the Tribunal. It was so
done by the Tribunal on the ground that no formal request had been
made to extend that time to file written statement. However, strict
provisions of C.P.C are not applicable to the proceedings before the
Tribunal. Moreover, the Tribunal should not have passed such a
harsh order of striking off defence of the petitioner herein due to non-
filing of written statement even before expiry of 90 days after the
petitioner herein appeared before the Tribunal. In these
circumstances, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be
met if the petitioner is allowed to file written statement on payment of
heavy costs.
I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without
issuing notice to the claimant-respondent No.1 so as to avoid further
C.R. No.7240 of 2009 -3-
delay and also to save the respondent No.1 from the expenses which
he may have to incur in engaging counsel for this revision petition if
notice is issued to him in the instant revision petition.
In view the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is
allowed and impugned order dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to
file written statement before the Tribunal on or before 15.12.2009,
the date said to be fixed before the Tribunal, subject to payment of
Rs.1000/- as costs precedent.
08.12.2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A.Kaundal JUDGE