SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision is directed against the judgment dated 19. 12. 1994 passed by the Sub Judge 2nd Class, Ferozepur, who allowed the application under Section 148 read with Section 151, C. P. C. , filed by defendant No. 1 Paramjit Singh and allowed him to file written statement subject to payment of Rs. 300/- as costs in spite of the fact that earlier the defence of the applicant-defendant was struck down.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiff Sukhdev Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his exclusive possession over the land measuring 2 Kanals fully described in the head note of the plaint. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants, who did not file the written statement and vide order dated 26. 2. 1993 the learned Sub Judge struck off the defence and proceeded with the case accordingly. He recorded the evidence of the plaintiff and the case was finally decided for arguments, when the defendant moved an application under Section 148 read with Section 151, C. P. C. after the expiry of about two years, praying to the Court that the order dated 26. 2. 1993 be recalled and the defendants may be permitted to participate in the proceedings by filling the written statement. It was pleaded by the defendant that he had gone to Calcutta to see his parents and there he fell ill and he was advised by the doctor not to move and, therefore, he could not come back to Punjab and was unable to contact his lawyer. He had been appearing in the suit on each and every date. The witness of the plaintiff was also cross-examined but the defence of the defendant-applicant was struck off for non-filing of the written statement. It was also submitted by the defendant that he had purchased the suit land from Gurdeep Singh son of Sukhminder Singh vide registered sale deed dated 22. 7. 1992 and said Gurdeep Singh vendor is recorded to be co-sharer and he was in possession of the suit land and he delivered the possession of the land to the defendant at the time of the execution of the sale-deed and thus he has become co-sharer in possession of the suit land. Finally it was pleaded by the defendant Paramjit Singh that in case he was not permitted to participate in the proceedings he would suffer irreparable loss.

(3.) THE learned trial Court allowed the application by mainly relying upon two citations reported as Tractor v. Bhim Singh, (1987-1)91 P. L. R. 435; and Pushpa Devi v. Sawan Singh and Ors. , (1982)84 P. L. R. 760. The learned trial Court tried to distinguish the citation reported as Pushpa Devi v. Sawan Singh and Ors. (supra), which was relied upon by the plaintiff.