Judgment:
Jasbir Singh, J.
1. Vide order dated 12.12.2005, for want of filing of written statement within stipulated period, defence of the petitioner was struck off. Counsel states that when order, under challenge, was passed, the matter was still fixed for service on other respondents and under that impression, his counsel failed to file the written statement, which otherwise, was ready with him. Counsel further states that the written statement, which is ready, shall be filed within 15 days from today before the Court below. This Court feels that it is a case where one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to place on record his written statement. Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it.
2. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs. and Ors. v. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) dead) by LRs. and Ors. : [2002]SUPP5SCR350 of the judgment had opined as under:
Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice.
3. View extracted above, was reiterated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in N. Balajit v. Virendra Singh and Ors., : (2004)8SCC312 , wherein after noting ratio of the judgment, referred to above, in para 10 of the judgment, it was observed that the procedure would not be used to discourage the substantial and effective justice but would be so construed as to advance the cause of justice.
4. In Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors., (2005-3)141 P.L.R. 558 (S.C.) and Smt. Rani Kusum v. Smt. Kanchan Devi and Ors., (2005-3)141 P.L.R. 627 (S.C), it has been held by their Lordships of Supreme Court that provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. are directory and not mandatory in nature.
5. In view of facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of judgments, referred to above, revision petition is allowed, trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to put on record his written statement. Order passed is subject to payment of Rs. 2000/-, as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
6. At this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. This view finds support from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 9563 of 2002, Batata Machine Tools Workshop Co-op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, rendered on June 27, 2002, in which it was held as under:
We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We Civil Revision No. 289 of 2006 -4 are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reason for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.
7. Liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order.