Supervisory jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable; it cannot be invoked by a litigant who fails to exercise diligence, provides unsubstantiated reasons for procedural delays, or exhibits inordinate delay in approaching the court, especially when ample opportunity was granted by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The instant civil revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the defence of the petitioner–defendant was struck off.

2. In exhaustive detail, the respondent–plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, claiming to be the owner in joint possession of the suit property and seeking a declaration that defendants No.1 to 5 have no right, title, or interest therein. The plaintiff further sought a declaration that the sale deed allegedly executed by defendants No.1 to 5 in their favour from defendant No.6 is illegal, null and void, and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and from dispossessing the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever.

3. Defendants No.2 to 5 filed their written statement on 02.08.2024. The petitioner–defendant No.6, though having put in appearance through counsel, failed to file the written statement. It is pleaded that the petitioner had proceeded abroad and, on account of such absence, was unable to furnish instructions to his counsel. Consequently, vide order dated 07.10.2024, the defence of the petitioner was struck off. Upon his return from abroad, the petitioner contacted his counsel and thereafter preferred the present revision petition challenging the said order.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper-book with due care and circumspection.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is illegal and suffers from material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, inasmuch as the non-filing of the written statement was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occasioned by unavoidable circumstances, namely the petitioner’s absence abroad.

6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner– defendant had appeared before the learned Trial Court on 14.03.2023 and, thereafter, repeated adjournments were granted for filing of the written statement. However, despite the grant of such opportunities, no written statement was filed, compelling the learned Civil Judge to strike off the defence of the petitioner on 07.10.2024.

6.1 It is manifest from the record that the petitioner was afforded opportunities extending far beyond the statutory framework contemplated under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates filing of the written statement within 30 days from the date of service, extendable up to 90 days upon sufficient cause being shown. Even in exceptional circumstances, where delay beyond the prescribed period is condoned, the Court is required to record reasons in writing justifying such indulgence. In the present case, the petitioner was granted indulgence for a period exceeding 18 months, yet failed to avail the same.

6.2 Significantly, even in the present revision petition, the petitioner has failed to furnish any cogent particulars regarding the period of his stay abroad, including the dates of departure and return, or any material to substantiate his inability to communicate with his counsel. In the contemporary era of advanced communication technologies, wherein interaction through video conferencing, telecommunication, and digital platforms such as messaging applications is both facile and ubiquitous, the explanati