SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUBASH CHAND – Appellant
Versus
KAMLESH VERMA – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CR-9531-2025 (O&M) -1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CR-9531-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 23.12.2025

Subash Chand ....Petitioner

VERSUS

Kamlesh Verma ....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate for

Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J (Oral).

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the

learned Rent Controller, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), whereby the defence of the

petitioner-tenant was struck off in Rent Petition No. 60 of 2024, titled “Kamlesh

Verma Vs. Subash Chand”.

2. The short question involved in the present revision petition is whether

the learned Rent Controller was justified in striking off the defence of the

petitioner without first deciding the application filed by him seeking supply of

copy of the rent petition and the documents annexed therewith, which were

essential for filing an effective and meaningful written statement. Since the

controversy lies in a narrow compass and arises purely from the record, no notice

is required to be issued to the respondent and the present revision petition is being

decided at this stage itself.

TRIPTI SAINI

2025.12.23 15:25

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

CR-9531-2025 (O&M) -2

3. A perusal of the impugned order and the material available on record

reveals that after entering appearance, the petitioner had specifically moved an

application seeking supply of copy of the rent petition and the documents relied

upon by the respondent-landlord. The petitioner had pleaded that without the

pleadings and annexures, he was not in a position to understand the case set up

against him or to file an effective written statement. It is evident from the record

that the said application remained undecided and the copies of the rent petition and

documents were not supplied to the petitioner. Despite this position, the learned

Rent Controller proceeded to strike off the defence of the petitioner on the ground

of non-filing of written statement.

4. Striking off the defence is a drastic consequence and affects the

valuable right of a party to contest the proceedings. Such power is required to be

exercised sparingly and only where the default is deliberate and contumacious. In

the present case, the petitioner had already approached the Court seeking supply of

essential pleadings and documents, and until such material was made available, the

obligation to file a written statement could not be enforced against him. The failure

to first decide the application seeking supply of documents and the subsequent

striking off of defence reflects a mechanical exercise of jurisdiction.

5. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated

16.10.2025 has been passed without proper application of mind to the facts and

circumstances of the case and has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The

order, therefore, suffers from material irregularity and warrants interference in

exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, S.A.S.

TRIPTI SAINI

2025.12.23 15:25

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

CR-9531-2025 (O&M) -3

Nagar (Mohali), striking off the defence of the petitioner, is hereby set aside. The

petitioner-tenant is granted one effective opportunity to file his written statement

within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

order, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-landlord. In case

of failure to comply with the above condition within the stipulated period, the

learned Rent Controller shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

December 23, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU)

tripti JUDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top