A court may restore a struck-off defense to ensure a fair trial and protect valuable rights, particularly when the party's non-appearance was due to a Bar Association 'No Work Day' resolution.

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon whereby the defence of the petitioner-defendant was struck off due to non-filing of the written statement.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents–plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery of ₹5,44,000/- against the petitioner on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 04.02.2019. Owing to the non-appearance of the petitioner, he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 14.03.2022, and the suit was consequently decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 26.05.2022.

2.1 Thereafter, the respondents filed an execution petition for enforcment of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 26.05.2022. On 12.09.2023, the petitioner appeared before the learned Executing Court for the first time and filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The said application was allowed on 11.08.2025. Subsequently, vide order dated 09.12.2025, the petitioner deposited costs of ₹2,000/-. However, despite the deposit of costs, the learned Trial Court struck off the defence of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of the written statement.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not afforded adequate and reasonable opportunity to file the written statement. He further submits that on 09.12.2025, the Bar Association, Jagraon, had passed a resolution declaring a “No Work Day” for the said date, and due to the non-appearance of counsel on that day, the learned Trial Court struck off the defence of the petitioner. It is contended that striking off the petitioner’s defence at this stage would cause grave prejudice to his rights and would adversely affect the fair trial of the case. Thus, for the proper adjudication of the matter and in view of the valuable rights involved, it is necessary to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the case record, this Court is of the considered view that, keeping in view the valuable rights of the petitioner involved in the present case and the fact that on the date when the impugned order was passed, the Bar Association, Jagraon, had declared a “No Work Day”, it would be in the interest of justice to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner for filing the written statement in the suit pending before the learned Trial Court.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, without commenting upon the merits of the case. The impugned order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, is hereby set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner in the District Legal Services Authority, Ludhiana.

7. The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on the date fixed and on his production of receipt qua deposition of costs, the trial Court shall grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner for filing of written statement.

8. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, for compliance.

9. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.