SUKHJINDER SINGH @ SUKHA Vs. SHAMSHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order in my consudered view will work injustice on the petitioner's right of defence against the suit brought against him. He is the defendant in the suit. It is a matter of record that 90 days period prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for presenting the written statement had elapsed when counted from the date of service of summons on the defendant but the written statement had not been filed. The suit is one for recovery of money. An explanation for delay has been given in paragraph 7 and 8 of the petition for failure to do so. It is not for this Court to go into explanations for the first time into the justification for not filing the written statement as this is in the first instance in the domain of the descretion of the trial Judge to exercise judiciously keeping in view that striking off defence is serious business, crippling the defendant. There can be other ways and means which law may permit to undo the injury caused, for example, by imposition of costs etc. which are more suitable in balancing the competing interests of the parties in the scales of justice.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that no application for an adjournment was filed on or before February 6, 2014 giving reasons for enlargement of time or extension of it when the impugned order was passed striking off the defence of the petitioner.

(3.) In such circumstances, I feel it would be more appropriate to remand the matter to the learned trial Judge to enable the petitioner to explain by an application the reasons for the delay in filing the written statement within the time allowed by the Code. If the trial Judge is then satisfied of the reasons for not filing the written statement as being sufficient or not then a fresh order would be passed in accordance with law with as liberal an approach as possible in the circumstances of the case and what would be the effect of non-suiting the petitioner at the commencement of the trial.