Shori Lal vs Faqir Chand and others

P.D. Sharma, J.—This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Tribunal appointed under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Shori Lal petitioner applied under S. 5 read with S. 11(2) and (3) of the Act for settlement of his debts and therein impleaded as many as twenty-eight respondents. Necessary notices of this petition were served on them but it looks that respondents Nos. 2 to 5 failed to file their written statements within fifteen days as required by the terms of the notice Shori Lal applied to the Tribunal that defence of the said respondents should be struck off and proceedings held ex parte against them The Tribunal framed the following issue:

Are the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 not entitled to file written statements?

The issue was found against the petitioner and his objection overruled. He has come up in revision to this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the form ''A'' mentioned in Rule 4 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Rules, which runs as:

Whereas (name of the applicant) has made an application against you to this Tribunal for the adjustment of his debts under S. 5 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951.

You are hereby called upon to show cause, if any against the application by filing written statement containing objections thereto within fifteen days of the service of the notice upon you....

He argued that the directions in the notice about filing of the written statement within fifteen days of the service of the notice were mandatory in character and noncompliance thereof should have resulted in ordering ex parte proceedings against the defaulting respondents. The learned Tribunal however held that the directions in the notice were not of mandatory type because there was no provision in any one of the sections in the Act or the rules made thereunder that in case the written statement was not filed within fifteen days of the notice the respondent would be precluded from contesting the proceedings for all times. He, therefore, allowed the respondents to participate in the proceedings pending before him. I am inclined to agree with the learned Tribunal. The provision of fifteen days as given in the notice referred to in Rule 4 is directory in nature and the Tribunal has not committed any error in not striking off the defence of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and proceeding ex-parte against them.

For the reasons given above, the revision petition is dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs. The parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the Tribunal on the date already fixed in the matter before him.