JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), SBS Nagar, vide which the defence of the petitioners-defendants was struck off on account of nonfiling of written statement.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was filed by the respondent-plaintiff (Mohan Singh) on 25.04.2025. The suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Notice was issued on 28.04.2025. Petitioners put in appearance before the trial Court through their counsel on 29.05.2025 and the case was adjourned to 29.07.2025 for filing of written statement. On the said date, the case was again adjourned to 13.08.2025 and then on 13.08.2025 to 16.09.2025 for filing of the written statement. On 16.09.2025, another suit pending between the same parties was also listed, in which replication was filed by the respondent-plaintiff and the said case was adjourned to 13.10.2025. Since the said case was adjourned to 13.10.2025, the petitioners were under the impression that their suit (CS-323-2025) was also adjourned to 13.10.2025 along with the said suit. However, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners only on 13.10.2025 that their defence had been struck off vide order dated 16.09.2025 on account of nonfiling of written statement.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that counsel for the petitioners put in appearance before the trial Court on 29.05.2025 after which, the case was adjourned consecutively on two dates for filing written statement and vide order dated 16.09.2025, the defence of the petitioners was struck off on account of non-filing of the written statement. He submits that two other suits were also pending between the same parties and one of the suits i.e. CS-484-2024 was listed on 16.09.2025 in which, the respondent-plaintiff filed replication and the said suit was adjourned to 13.10.2025. He submits that since the said suit was adjourned to 13.10.2025, the petitioners were under the impression that their suit (CS-323-2025) was also adjourned to 13.10.2025. It came to the knowledge of the petitioners only on 13.10.2025 that their defence had been struck off vide order dated 16.09.2025 when another suit (CS-484-2024) was listed.

5. Learned counsel submits that though the statutory period for filing written statement had elapsed, non-filing of written statement was purely unintentional and bona fide. He further submits that the case is still at its initial stage and, therefore, one opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file the written statement, failing which the rights of the petitioners shall be gravely prejudiced. Learned counsel submitted that it is well settled that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') are not mandatory but merely directory, and that the trial Court should have taken into consideration the circumstances in which the written statement was not filed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Deshraj v. Balkishan (D) Through Proposed LR Ms. Roshini, 2020(2) SCC 708.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. There would be no necessity of issuing notice to the respondent, for, in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, no prejudice would be caused to him.

8. Concededly, the petitioners put in appearance before the trial Court on 29.05.2025 and power of attorney was filed on the same date. A perusal of the interlocutory orders which have been annexed as Annexures P-2 to P-4 shows that another suit i.e. CS-484-2024 was also listed on 16.09.2025. On the same date, the present suit i.e. CS-323-2025 was