IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:09.02.2026 Ms. Adi* Garg …..Pe**oner Vs.

Shamsher Singh Mavi .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Pe(cid:10)(cid:10)oner in person.

(through Video Conferencing).

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The pe(cid:10)(cid:10)oner herein is the plain(cid:10)ff in civil suit bearing No. CS-

1764-2021 (cid:10)tled “Adi(cid:5) Garg versus Shamsher Singh Mavi and another”, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. She has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby her applica(cid:10)on seeking striking off the defence of the defendants was dismissed.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the pe(cid:10)(cid:10)oner ins(cid:10)tuted the suit in April, 2021 seeking damages on account of alleged torture and nuisance caused by the defendants by running a diesel engine genera(cid:10)ng excessive noise in residen(cid:10)al area. The defendants put in appearance through counsel on 20.12.2021. Therea4er, the wri5en statement was not filed within the statutory period and the ma5er was adjourned on several occasions, including on 16.07.2022, when the case was adjourned to

23.08.2022 for filing of the wri5en statement.

3. It further emerges from the record that on 16.11.2022, the pe(cid:10)(cid:10)oner moved an applica(cid:10)on for striking off the defence of the defendants on account of their failure to file the wri5en statement within the prescribed (cid:10)me. The said applica(cid:10)on was adjourned to 17.01.2023 for reply. However, on the same date, the case was taken up again and the wri5en statement filed by the defendants, was taken on record. Despite this, the pe(cid:10)(cid:10)oner pressed her applica(cid:10)on for striking off the defence, which was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the wri5en statement had already been filed.

4. Assailing the impugned order, the pe(cid:10)(cid:10)oner, who has argued the ma5er in person, contends that the wri5en statement was filed well beyond the period of 90 days prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and that the trial Court had been gran(cid:10)ng adjournments mechanically without assigning reasons. It is, therefore, urged that the wri5en statement could not have been taken on record and the defence ought to have been struck off.

5. The conten(cid:10)on does not merit acceptance. It is true that the Code prescribes a period of 90 days for filing of the wri5en statement. However, the legal posi(cid:10)on stands se5led that the said (cid:10)me limit is directory and not mandatory in nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Salem Bar Associa(cid:14)on v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 635, has held that though the provision is intended to expedite the trial, it does not curtail the power of the Court to extend (cid:10)me in appropriate cases, albeit such extension should not be granted rou(cid:10)nely or mechanically. The Court retains a wide discre(cid:10)on to regulate the proceedings in a manner that advances the cause of jus(cid:10)ce.

6. In the present case, it is significant to note that the trial Court had been consistently gran(cid:10)ng (cid:10)me to the defendants for filing the wri5en statement, including vide order dated 16.07.2022. At no point did the pe(cid:10)(cid:10)oner challenge those orders or seek their modifica(cid:10)on. The applica(cid:10)on for striking off the defence was pressed effec(cid:10)vely only on the very date, when the wri5en statement had already been filed and taken on record. Once the wri5en statement stood filed on the date fixed by the trial Court itself, the founda(cid:10)on for striking off the defence ceased to exist.

7. Striking off the defence is a dras(cid:10)c measure and cannot be invoked as a ma5er of course. It is intended to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of deliberate, contumacious, or wilful disregard of the Court’s process. In the facts of the present case, no such