JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. 

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana, District Patiala, vide which the defence of defendant No.2/petitioner has been struck off on account of his failure to file the written statement.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material placed on the file.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay in filing the written statement was not intentional and was rather beyond the control of the petitioner. His younger son namely Amandeep Singh, who had been impleaded as defendant No.3, had died and the petitioner was, thus, under stress for a long time and could not contact his counsel to file the written statement. Learned counsel further contended that even his counsel did not inform him, who infact was earlier engaged by the present plaintiff/respondent in one civil suit instituted by the present plaintiff against one Surender Kumar. Learned counsel next contended that one opportunity be granted to file the written statement in the interest of justice and that he is also ready to pay the cost and the impugned order be set aside.

4. However, I do not find any force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition in hand is liable to be dismissed for the reasons discussed hereinafter.

5. Before proceeding further, the impugned order is reproduced as under:-

“Written statement and reply to stay application again not filed by defendant no.2 & 3 despite being last opportunity. Perusal of record shows that the defendants no.2 and 3 appeared in this case through counsel on 18.04.2024 and thereafter defendants no.2 and 3 have availed sufficient effective opportunities for filing the written statement including last, but they have failed to do so. Even vide order dated 23.04.2025, cost was imposed on the defendants but neither cost paid nor written statement filed. Now as per order 8 rule 1 CPC, the written statement is to be filed within the period of 30 days from the service of summons but in exceptional cases, the said period has extended till 90 days but in the present case period of 90 days has already elapsed but written statement has not been filed on behalf of defendants no.2 and 3. No reasonable justification is there to grant more time to defendants no.2 and 3 to file written statement. Accordingly, the defence of the defendants no.2 and 3 is ordered to be struck off. Now to come up on 04.12.2025 for evidence of plaintiff.

CJJD, Samana

UID NO. PB00565 ”

6. A perusal of the aforesaid order as well as the record placed on file shows that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent on 10.04.2014 and notice was ordered to be issued to the defendants. Defendant No.2/petitioner appeared on 18.04.2024 and the case was adjourned for filing of the written statement. However, he failed to file the written statement up to 15.10.2025, when the defence of defendant No.2/petitioner was struck off on account of his failure to file the written statement. The aforesaid order, thus, shows that the defendant No.2/petitioner has been lethargic while defending the suit and did not make any efforts to file his written statement within the stipulated period of 30 days or 90 days. It is well settled that when a defendant fails to file the written statement within the stipulated period and consequently, the defence is struck off due to lethargy or wilful negligence, the courts should not come to the aid of such lethargic litigants. The petitioner has not been able to show that the delay in filing the written statement was due to “exceptional circumstances” rather than mere negligence and as such, no ground to set aside the well-reasoned order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-11) is made out. The learned Trial Court has rightly struck off the defence as the petitioner failed to file the written statement for a period of around 1½ ye