HIMMAT SINGH Vs. SHARDA BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.08.2013 (Annexure P -2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby defence of the petitioner has been struck off for non -filing of written statement. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant, his agents, attorneys, associates from interfering in the peaceful user of the plaintiff and his tenant over the suit property. In the suit as well as the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC notice was issued to the petitioner for 28.06.2013. However, for the date fixed petitioner/defendant could not be served and fresh notice was issued for 11.07.2013. On 11.07.2013 counsel for the petitioner/defendant appeared and sought time for filing the written statement and the case was adjourned to 15.07.2013. On 15.07.2013, counsel for the petitioner moved an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for production of original lease deed and sale deed in order to file effective written statement. Notice of the said application was issued for 30.07.2013 for filing reply. Due to non -filing of reply by the respondent/plaintiff case was adjourned to 07.08.2013. On 07.08.2013 application filed by the petitioner/defendant was disposed of and case was adjourned to 16.08.2013. On 16.08.2013 on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant case was adjourned to 23.08.2013 for filing the written statement. On 23.08.2013 Presiding Officer was on casual leave and case was taken up on 24.08.2013 and was adjourned to 29.08.2013. Again on 29.08.2013, counsel for the petitioner/defendant sought adjournment for filing the written statement, which was declined and the defence of the petitioner was struck off. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.