CR No. 6629 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.6629 of 2008
Decided on : 01-12-2008
Nasib Kaur
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Murti Kaur and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
MAHESH GROVER, J
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
10.10.2008 of Deputy Commissioner, Barnala.
The petitioner is an elected Panch who is facing an election
petition. Despite the number of opportunities granted to her she chose not
to file her reply, as a result of which the impugned order was passed
directing ex parte proceedings against the petitioner and also fixing a date
for recording the evidence of the respondent.
The defence of the petitioner was ultimately struck off on
17.11.2008 when an application for setting aside ex parte order (Annexure
P-2) was moved.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was
given time to file the reply on 15th September, 2008 and the matter was
adjourned for the said purpose to 19th September, 2008. Thereafter, the
CR No. 6629 of 2008 2
matter was again adjourned to 29th September, 2008 for the same purpose
but the petitioner again failed to file the reply. The matter was then
adjourned to 10th October, 2008 and it was made clear that it was the last
opportunity for the said purpose. At this stage, neither the petitioner nor her
counsel appeared, as a result of which she was directed to be proceeded
against ex parte. Thereafter, an application was moved for setting aside the
ex parte proceedings on the basis of which the impugned order dated
17.11.2008 came into existence striking off the defence of the petitioner.
The petitioner is facing election proceedings before the Tribunal
which is duty bound to complete the proceedings within a stipulated time
frame. Apparently, the petitioner who is facing inconvenient proceedings is
trying to delay the proceedings to gain advantage. There is no infirmity in
the impugned orders which have been passed, which are perfectly, justified
in the given set of circumstances.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that if one
opportunity is granted to the petitioner, reply shall be filed. As observed
earlier, even though there is no infirmity in the impugned order, yet purely
in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file
the reply within one week from today positively, subject to payment of Rs.
10,000/- as costs.
Disposed of.
December 1, 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge