Avtar Singh Vs. Avtar Singh

.....contest such alienation. it was, therefore, felt necessary to engraft certain restriction on degrees of collateral, eligible to contest an alienation, which under the custom itself was not limited. accordingly, the punjab custom (power to contest) act, 1920 (act no.2 of 1920) was enacted. the hindu succession act was extended to the state of punjab. act 2 of punjab act defined expression alienation to include any testamentary disposition of property and appointment of an heir was to include any adoption made or purporting to be made according to custom. a further provision was made by section 3 that hindu succession act was to apply only in respect of alienation of immovable property or appointment of heirs made by persons who in regard to such alienation or appointment were governed by custom. whereas section 4 declared that hindu succession act was not to affect any right to contest any alienation or appointment of an heir made before the date on which the succession act was to come into force. in other words, act, no.2 of 1920 was not to affect alienation or appointments of heir made before date on which it came into force. it also preserved the rights of any alienation or appointment of an heir made by a family. after section 7 was inserted in act of 1920 by the punjab amendment act of 1973 right of contest being contrary to custom had been totally effaced and taken away. therefore, no person has any right to contest any alienation of immovable property whether ancestral or non-ancestral on ground of being contrary to custom after january 23, 1973. in haryana, the situation as enunciated by act no.2 of 1920 continued to prevail in respect of alienation because no reforms parallel to punjab as brought by amendment act of 1973, had been enacted although right to pre-emption has been substantially abolished in haryana also. no steps even have been taken in that regard. therefore, situation in haryana have to be regarded as it existed under act no. 2 of.....m.m. aggarwal, j.1. this is petition filed by the defendant against order dated 6.11.2006 passed by civil judge (jr. divn.), ludhiana whereby defence of the defendant was struck off as written statement and reply to the stay application was not filed in spite of many opportunities given. case was then fixed for consideration of stay matter.on behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that after this order, case is fixed for evidence of the plaintiff, now respondent, but no evidence has so far been recorded. counsel for the petitioner states that the written statement is ready.2. in view of the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in shaik salim haji abdul khayamsab v. kumar and ors. : air 2006 sc396 , order 8 rule 1 c.p.c. are not mandatory. these are directory.in view of this, petition is allowed. let written statement be filed and the same be taken on record by the trial court subject to payment of rs. 2,000/- as costs.