STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of mine would dispose of Civil Revisions No. 119 and 120 of 1996, as common question of law has arisen in both the cases. Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has submitted that the facts of the case be taken from Civil Revision No. 119 of 1996, State of Punjab v. Sohan, 1996(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 504. I am accordingly picking up the facts of the case from the aforementioned civil revision.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order passed by Joint Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 25.3.1994 imposing penalty of Rs. 20328-59 P was illegal, null and void and against the service rules. Notice in the suit was issued to the two defendants i.e. the State of Punjab petitioner No. 1 and Joint Secretary, Food and Supplies Department Punjab, Chandigarh petitioner No. 2. After the appearance was put in by the defendants, they sought time for filing the written statement. The time was initially granted but on 12.10.1995 the defence of the petitioners has been struck off on the ground that more than two months were allowed for filing the written statement and that no time could be extended beyond the aforesaid period as Order 27 Rule 5 of C.P.C. does not permit the extension of time beyond two months. The pointed question of law which has arisen in the present revision petition is whether the trial Court has got a discretion to allow an adjournment even if more than two months have expired or is it that the court is bound to strike off the defence of the defendants in accordance with the provisions of Order 27 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. Order 27 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code has been extracted out by me which reads as under:-