IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 11.11.2025

Pronounced on : 17.12.2025

Uploaded on: 19.12.2025

M/s Ramnprastha Estate Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner

V/s

Ankit and others …Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Argued by: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate and Mr. Uday Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate,

for respondents No.4, 5, 7, 11 to 13, 15, 16 and 17(i), 17(v),

17(vi) and 17(vii).

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, assails the order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurugram, vide which order dated 12.11.2021 striking off the defence of the respondents-defendants on account of non-filing of the written statement was recalled and the respondents-defendants were permitted to file written statements subject to

payment of Rs.1000/- as costs by each of them.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts emerging from the petition are that a suit for declaration and specific performance with consequential relief of permanent injunction was instituted by the petitioner- plaintiff (M/s Ramnprastha Estate Pvt. Ltd. ) (hereinafter referred to the as the petitioner-plaintiff) against 23 defendants including the present respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents-defendants). Since

the requisite pleadings have not been placed on record, the facts of the case are not available but it appears and it was argued that the dispute, as happens in most cases, stems from some collaboration agreement/agreement to sell.

2.1 Vide order dated 12.11.2021, the defence of the respondents-

defendants was struck off on account of non-filing of written statement.

2.2 An application (Annexure P-2) was preferred by the respondents-defendants for setting aside the said order dated 12.11.2021 and permitting the respondents-defendants to file their written statement. It was averred in the application that though they had been appearing before the Court for quite a while, no effective proceedings could take place on account of the prevailing pandemic and other factors. It was averred that the respondents-defendants had always been willing to file their written statement and in fact, the same was ready. However, many of the defendants had expired and applications for impleading legal representatives of defendants No.14, 17, 18 and 19 were pending. It was averred that defendants No. 1 to 20 belonged to the same family and were, therefore, under an impression that once the legal representatives were brought on record, written statements could be filed by all defendants. It was averred that the petitioner-plaintiff wanted specific performance of a development agreement and agreement to sell which pertained to an extremely valuable piece of land belonging to the respondents-defendants and that under the circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice that the written statement be permitted to be filed. It was also submitted that since the trial has not yet commenced, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-plaintiff.

2.3 The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-3) wherein, all amendments were denied and it was prayed that the application be dismissed.

3. By way of the impugned order, the said application was allowed leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

5. It was strenuously urged by Sh. Sanjay Vij, learned counsel representing the petitioner-plaintiff that the trial court had exercised a power which did not vest in it and that it had erroneously recalled order dated 12.11.2021 vide which defence had been struck off. It was submitted that there is no provision in law as per which such an order could have been passed.

5.1 It was further submitted that though the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedures, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) are directory, they cannot be stretched beyond a certain limit