STATE OF H P Vs. PANKAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the defendants against the order dated 25-2-2005 passed by the learned trial Court vide which the defence of defendants 5 (a), 5(b), 5 (c) and 6 was struck off for the reason that written statement was not filed within time.

(2.) The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition, are that Pankaj Sharma-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction etc. against defendant Nos. 1 to 6. The said suit was filed on 14-10-2004. Vide order dated 15-10-2004, notice in the said suit was ordered to be issued to the defendants for 4-11-2004. On 4-11-2004, the Assistant District Attorney had appeared on behalf of defendants 5 (a), 5(b) and 6 while the learned counsel had appeared on behalf of defendant 5 (c) and no one had appeared on behalf of defendant. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 despite service and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte and the ease was adjourned to 3-12-2004 for the service of defendant No. 2 who was unserved and the defendants, who were represented by their counsel were directed to file their written statement on the next date. On 3-12-2004 time was prayed for filing written statement, which was granted and the case was adjourned to 14-1-2005 for the service of defendant No. 2 and for the written statement by the defendants, who were represented by their counsel. It appears that on 14-1-2005. the trial Court was not holding the Court and the case was adjourned to 25-2-2005 by a separate order (which does not appear to be on the trial Court file). On 25-2-2005. the trial Court noticed that written statement on behalf of defendants 5 (a), 5(b) and 6, which was being adopted by defendant 5(c), had been filed in the Court. However, since the counsel for the plaintiff raised objection to the effect that written statement had been filed after the expiry of 90 days, the learned trial Court vide order dated 25-2-2005 struck off the defence of defendants 5 (a), 5(b), 5(c) and 6 on the ground that written statement had not been filed within time and adjourned the case to 28-3-2005 for service of defendant No. 2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 25-2-2005 passed by the trial Court, the aggrieved defendants filed the present revision petition in this Court.

(3.) Vide order dated 30-3-2005, notice in the present revision petition was ordered to be issued to plaintiff-respondent No. 1 only and further proceedings before the trial Court were ordered to remain stayed. Records were also sent for.