##PAGE1##

CR-833-2026 (O&M) [1]

220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

*****

CR-833-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision:28.01.2026

Poonam and ors. …..Appellants

Versus

Vaibhav Redhu minor and ors. …..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr.Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate

for the appellants.

-.-

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners-defendants No.5 to 7, by way of present

revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

seeks setting aside of orders dated 03.11.2025 (P-6) and 14.11.2025

(P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gohana

(hereinafter to be called as "trial Court"), whereby their defence was

struck off.

2. Briefly stating, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for

partition, permanent & mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts

and declaration against the petitioners-defendants No.5 to 7.

3. A perusal of the record shows that though numerous

opportunities were afforded to the petitioners, however, no written

statement was filed and resultantly, their defence was struck off vide

SANJAY GUPTA

2026.02.03 17:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-833-2026 (O&M) [2]

order dated 03.11.2025, 06.11.2025 and 14.11.2025 passed by the

trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Impugning the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that in the absence of any defence being put-forth

by way of filing written statement, the petitioners will not be able to

defend the suit in an effective manner, which definitely will cause

serious prejudice to their rights therein.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.

6. In the humble opinion of this Court, in case the impugned

order is allowed to stand, the petitioners herein would be deprived of

their right to file written statement and may not be able to put-forth

their defence to the case set up by the respondents-plaintiffs in the

plaint. Though, there appears to be lack of due diligence on the part

of petitioners while contesting the suit, however, considering the fact

that ever since the passing of impugned order, the proceedings in the

suit have not moved too far, as such, it would be in the interest of

justice to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioners, so as to

file written statement in order to protect their substantial rights

involved in the suit.

7. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kailash Vs.

Nanhku and ors.", 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 379, while considering the

provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, has held that the same being

part of procedural law, is directory in nature. Still further, in the

SANJAY GUPTA

2026.02.03 17:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-833-2026 (O&M) [3]

interest of the substantial justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court under

somewhat similar circumstances, in "Siddalingayya Vs.

Gurulingappa and ors.", 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 543, upheld the

opportunity of filing written statement granted by the High Court. Even

otherwise, upholding of the impugned order will cause serious

prejudice to the rights of petitioners as they will not be able to contest

the case set up by the respondents.

8. Accordingly, by adopting a pragmatic approach; rather

than being hyper-technical, the impugned orders passed by the trial

Court, are modified, thereby granting one effective opportunity to the

petitioners so as to file their written statement within two weeks from

today before the trial Court, subject to payment of costs of

Rs.10,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioners with the trial

Court on the date fixed for presenting the written statement, which

shall be disbursed in favour of respondents-plaintiffs.

9. Disposed off accordingly.

10. It is made clear that in case, the respondents find any

mis-statement of fact on the part of petitioners, the respondents shall

be at liberty to approach this Court by moving an appropriate

application in this regard.

11. Keeping in view the nature of procee