Full Text
Translation output
^ A-33
% 27.09.2011
Present: Mr. D.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM (M) NO. 1131/2011 and CM No. 18090/2011
*
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
24.08.2011 vide which the defence of the defendant has been struck off. Record shows that the present suit is a suit for recovery; initially it had been filed as a suit under Order 37 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'); on the request of the plaintiff, it was treated as an ordinary suit.
Defendant was served on 18.12.2010; matter was thereafter fixed for reconciliation between the parties; on 10.06.2011, the court had noted that'the defendant had not filed his written statement within the period of 30 days; the request of the defendant that he would be fihng his written statement shortly alongwith an application for condonation of delay had been noted. On
24.08.2011, the impugned order was passed dismissing the apphcation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In this application, it had been averred that earlier counsel, Ms. Dhaneswari had been appointed but she did not prepare the written statement in time; she had also failed to appear in court on the fixed date i.e. 02.05.2011; further contention is that the court had also inadvertently in the order dated 10.06.2011 noted that
2011:DHC:19500
. i the present suit is under Order 37 of the Code whereas it was an ordinary suit for which an apphcation for correction had also been filed by the defendant.
This is borne out form the record. In view of the explanation tendered and in the interest of justice, impugned order dated
24.08.2011 is recalled; subject to payment of ^ 5,000/- as cost; written statement already filed shall be taken on record; rephcation be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19500
% 27.09.2011
Present: Mr. D.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM (M) NO. 1131/2011 and CM No. 18090/2011
*
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
24.08.2011 vide which the defence of the defendant has been struck off. Record shows that the present suit is a suit for recovery; initially it had been filed as a suit under Order 37 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'); on the request of the plaintiff, it was treated as an ordinary suit.
Defendant was served on 18.12.2010; matter was thereafter fixed for reconciliation between the parties; on 10.06.2011, the court had noted that'the defendant had not filed his written statement within the period of 30 days; the request of the defendant that he would be fihng his written statement shortly alongwith an application for condonation of delay had been noted. On
24.08.2011, the impugned order was passed dismissing the apphcation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In this application, it had been averred that earlier counsel, Ms. Dhaneswari had been appointed but she did not prepare the written statement in time; she had also failed to appear in court on the fixed date i.e. 02.05.2011; further contention is that the court had also inadvertently in the order dated 10.06.2011 noted that
2011:DHC:19500
. i the present suit is under Order 37 of the Code whereas it was an ordinary suit for which an apphcation for correction had also been filed by the defendant.
This is borne out form the record. In view of the explanation tendered and in the interest of justice, impugned order dated
24.08.2011 is recalled; subject to payment of ^ 5,000/- as cost; written statement already filed shall be taken on record; rephcation be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19500
JUDGMENT