BALWINDER SINGH Vs. HARMANDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 2.4.2012 passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non- filing of written statement by the petitioners, their defence was struck off. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit filed by respondent no. 1/plaintiff against the petitioners for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from dispossessing him from the land measuring 4B-1B situated at village Bhullarah, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

(2.) FOR the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Parmajeet Kaur mother of respondent nos. 2 to 4 and daughter of petitioner no. 2 was the owner in possession of land measuring 16B-4B. After her death, her husband Pargat Singh illegally got the mutation sanctioned in his favour, which would have been sanctioned in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 4, who are minors and residing with petitioner no. 2. Petitioner no. 2 filed civil suit on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 challenging the sanctioning of mutation in favour of Pargat Singh. The said suit was decreed in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 4. Pargat Singh wants to sell the property. FIR No. 126 dated 24.7.2008 has also been lodged against Pargat Singh and plaintiff Harmandeep Singh under Section 420 IPC. It was submitted that written statement could not be filed in time as the application filed by petitioner no. 2 for appointing him as guardian of respondent nos. 2 to 4 was not decided by the learned court below. Vide impugned order dated 2.4.2012, the learned court below struck off the defence of the petitioners. It was submitted that delay in filing the written statement was not intentional. It was further submitted that evidence of the plaintiff is yet to start. The prayer is that order dated 2.4.2012 striking off defence of the petitioners be set aside and one opportunity be granted to file the written statement. He has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kailash vs Nanhku and others , JT 2005(4) SC 204; Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, JT 2005(6) SC 486 and M/s R. N. Jadi and Brothers and others v. Subhashchandra, JT 2007(9) SC 165 to submit that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory.