CRM-M-13887-2014 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13887-2014 Date of decision : 24.04.2014 Amarjeet Kaur ..Petitioner Versus Har Kawalpreet Kaur and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside order dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure P3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar whereby the defence of the petitioner has been struck off in proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (in short 'the Act') for failure to file the reply.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that no doubt, the petitioner failed to file the reply despite three opportunities granted for the purpose but a serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case she is not permitted to file the reply and order striking off her defence is allowed to sustain as she will not get effective opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case.
It is further submitted that the respondents can be compensated with costs for delay due to failure of the petitioner to file reply at the time provided by the Court below.
Davinder Kumar 2014.04.29 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13887-2014 2 I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
The present petitioner was earlier proceeded against ex-parte and the ex-parte proceedings were set aside vide order passed on 27.11.2013.
Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed three opportunities to file her reply but she failed to do so.
In case, the petitioner is not permitted to file her reply and the order striking off defence is allowed to remain in force, she would not get an opportunity to lead evidence to counter the case of the respondents (petitioners therein).Keeping in view the principle of natural justice coupled with the factum that serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioner in case she is not permitted to file a counter to the allegations raised by the respondent, the present petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to file reply on the next date fixed before the trial Court subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents.
The petition has been disposed of without giving notice to the respondents in order to avoid causing inconvenience to them to engage a counsel and incur necessary expenses.
However, respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court in case she has any grievance to express against the order passed by this Court.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE April 24, 2014.
Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2014.04.29 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document