Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 238 (PNJ)

Sarwan Singh v. Naranjan Singh

2006-01-31

JASBIR SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. Vide order under challenge, defence of the petitioner was struck off for want of filing of the written statement. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that written statement was ready, however, the same could not be filed in the Court because of some gap of communication with counsel for the petitioner. It has been stated that suit against the petitioner is for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 29.5.2000 and if the petitioner is not allowed to defend the suit, then an irreparable loss is likely to be caused to him, as is going to loose his very valuable property, that- too, without any contest. A prayer has been made that only one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to place on record his written statement. Prayer made has been vehemently opposed by counsel putting up appearance for the respondent. 3. This Courts feels that Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it. 4. 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. " 5. 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. 6. 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 1of CPC are directory and not mandatory in nature. 6. 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 1of CPC are directory and not mandatory in nature. In view of ratio of judgments referred to above and facts of this case, this revision petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside. Trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to put on record his written statement. Order passed is subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent on the date fixed before the trial court. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to make payment of the costs and produce his evidence on the date fixed by the trial Court, this revision Petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.