IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.8691 of 2025 Date of decision: November 28^th, 2025 Daya Wati and others .....Petitioners Versus Banita @ Basanta and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Gian Chand Shahpuri and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Rana, Advocates for the petitioners.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which the defence of the petitioners has been struck off. Challenge is also to the order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) vide which application for recalling the said order has also been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the co-defendants of the petitioners had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which application was ultimately withdrawn on 05.09.2025 i.e. after the passing of the impugned order dated 04.08.2025. It is submitted that the counsel for the petitioners before the trial Court was apparently under the impression that the written statement would be filed by the petitioners after the decision in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and a perusal of the order dated 04.08.2025 would show that although the defence of the petitioners was struck off but the case was adjourned for arguments on the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is submitted that the issues were framed in the present case on 17.09.2025 and till date, no plaintiffs’ evidence has been led and the case is now fixed for 03.12.2025. It is submitted that although the suit was filed in the year 2019 and there is fault on the part of the petitioners also, but from the said facts, it is apparent that the case is at an initial stage. It is submitted that in case the petitioners are not permitted to file written statement, then irreparable loss will be caused to them and it has been submitted that one last opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file their written statement and for the delay caused in the proceedings, petitioners are ready to pay reasonable cost.

3. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that one last opportunity should be granted to the petitioners to file their written statement subject to heavy cost. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 as well as order dated 11.11.2025, to the extent that the defence of the present petitioners has been struck off, are set aside with the following observations/directions:

(i) The petitioners are granted one last opportunity to file their written statement on or before 03.12.2025. The petitioners ₹

would also deposit an amount of 30,000/- on or before the said date, which would be released to respondent No.1 by the trial Court.

(ii) In case the written statement is not filed or the cost is not deposited on or before 03.12.2025, then the present revision petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

4. In the present case, no notice is being issued to the respondents as issuance of notice to the respondents would further delay the proceedings and would also entail the expenses for respondents to defend the present revision petition. However, it would be open to respondents to move an application for recalling of the present order in case any of the statement made before this Court is found to be false/incorrect.

November 28^th, 2025 (VIKAS BAHL)

Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No