IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-606-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 27.01.2026 JAGDEEP SINGH ....PETITIONER VERSUS TALWINDER KAUR ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. J.S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner/revisionist.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the defence of petitioner/defendant has been struck off on account of failure to pay cost and to file the written statement.

2. Before proceeding further, the impugned order is reproduced as under:-

“ Written statement and reply to the stay application not filed. Perusal of the file shows that defendant had put in appearance way back on 02.07.2025 and has already availed 4 effective opportunities for filing the written statement and reply but failed to do so, despite imposition of cost vide order dated 30.09.2025. Neither cost paid nor written statement/reply has been filed. As such, there is no ground for granting another opportunity to defendant for filing written statement particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in ‘Yashpal Jain vs. Sushila Devi’ bearing CA no. 4296 of 2023 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.10.2023. As such, defence of defendant is struck of Now the case stands adjourned to 29.01.2026, for evidence of plaintiff.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist contended that in the suit instituted by the plaintiff, defendant had put up his appearance on 02.07.2025 and had availed 4 opportunities to file the written statement. However, the impugned order, vide which defence has been stuck off is a harsh order and has far-reaching consequences and instead of adopting such a stringent course, learned Trial Court ought to have afforded an opportunity to defendant/petitioner to file written statement in the interest of justice, so as to enable him to setup his defence to the claim of plaintiff. Learned counsel further contended that in non- commercial suits, the provision of filing written statement within a period of 90 days is directory and not mandatory and Court in its wisdom should have afforded one more opportunity to file the written statement. Learned counsel further contended that one more opportunity to file the written statement be afforded in the interest of justice, subject to payment of cost and he will file the written statement on the date fixed and he prayed that impugned order be set aside.

4. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondent.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist and have gone through the material on record.

6. Defendant had put in his appearance on 02.07.2025 and he failed to file the written statement and to pay cost by 18.12.2025, and the defence was struck off. However, instead of passing a harsh order of striking off defence, the Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to file the written statement in the interest of justice, subject to payment of cost as valuable rights of defendant are involved. In case, the defence is struck off, a party is not left with any remedy and is deprived of the opportunity to setup its defence to the claim of the plaintiff.

7. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to the defendant to file the written statement, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs and the impugned order is accordingly set aside. In case, defendant/petitioner fails to file the written statement or to pay the cost, no further adjournment shall be granted to him.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)

27.01.2026 JUDGE Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No