Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1061 (PNJ)

Harbans Singh v. Rachhpal Singh

2006-03-16

JASBIR SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. Vide order, under challenge, defence of the petitioner was struck off on the ground that he has failed to file his written statement within a period of 90 days. It is apparent from the records that the written statement was filed by the petitioner on 14.10.2005. Counsel states that as the matter was fixed for summoning of other defendant, in view of that, he failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period. 2. Counsel further says that when the order, under challenge, was passed on 6.12.2005, written statement had already been placed on record, as such, the court below was not justified to struck off his defence. It has further been brought to the notice of the Court that now the trial is fixed for 4.4.2006 for filing of written statement by other defendant/ respondent No.6. A prayer has been made that the time to file written statement be extended and the court below be directed to take into consideration the written statement already filed by the petitioner. 3. This Court feels that rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh kalra (dead) by L. Rs. And others V/s. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) dead) by l. Rs. And others (2003) 3 S. C. C.272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under:- "laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. " 4. View extracted above, was reiterated by their Lordships of supreme Court in N. Balajit V/s. Virendra Singh and others, (2004) 8 supreme court Cases 312, wherein after noting ratio of the judgment, referred to above, in para 10 of the judgment, it was observed that the procedure would not be used to discourage the substantial and effective justice but would be so construed as to advance the cause of justice. 5. Furthermore, in Kailash V/s. Nanhku and ors. 5. Furthermore, in Kailash V/s. Nanhku and ors. , 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 379 and Smt. Rani Kusum V/s. Smt. Kanchan Devi and ors.2005 (3)RCR (Civil) 727, it has been held by their Lordships of Supreme court that provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC are directory and not mandatory in nature. 6. In view of ratio of judgments referred to above and facts of this case, revision petition is allowed, order under challenge, is set aside to the extent it debarred the petitioner to place on record his written statement. 7. The Court below is directed to treat written statement already filed by the petitioner, as having been filed within time. Order passed is subject to payment of Rs.3000/-, as costs to be paid by the petitioner to respondent nos.1 to 2 on the next date of hearing i. e.4.4.2006. At this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. This view finds support from the judgment of the division bench of this Court in C. W. P. No.9563 of 2002, (Batala Machine tools workshop Co-op vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur), rendered on June 27, 2002, in which it was held as under:- "we are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reason for not issuing notice to the respondent-workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court/labourcum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur. " 8. Liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order.