IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-619-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 27.01.2026 BHAGWANT SINGH AND OTHERS ....PETITIONERS VERSUS TALWINDER SINGH RANDHAWA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. A.K. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners/revisionists.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran, vide which the defence of petitioners/defendants No.1 to 4 has been struck off on account of failure to pay cost and to file the written statement.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that after the suit in hand was instituted by the plaintiffs, defendants had put in their appearance on 07.07.2025 on which date Memo of Appearance was filed on their behalf and case was adjourned to 18.08.2025 for filing written statement and Power of Attorney. On 18.08.2025, their counsel filed Power of Attorney and sought adjournment for filing of written statement and the case was adjourned to 08.09.2025 and thereafter, to 16.10.2025. Vide order dated 16.10.2025, the case was adjourned to and last opportunity was granted. However, no written statement was filed and the defence has been struck off. Learned counsel next contended that no doubt they have failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period but such a stringent course should not have been adopted as striking off defence has far-reaching consequences and defendants will be deprived of the opportunity to setup their defence. In non-commercial suits, the provision of filing written statement within a period of 90 days is directory and non-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 they will file the written statement on the date fixed and he prayed that impugned order be set aside.

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

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/revisionists and have gone through the material on record.

5. Defendants had put in appearance on 07.07.2025. No doubt they have failed to file the written statement by 10.11.2025 and pay the cost as directed by the Court but instead of passing a harsh order of striking off defence, the Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioners/defendants to file the written statement in the interest of justice, subject to payment of costs as valuable rights of defendants 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 plaintiffs.

6. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to costs and the impugned order is accordingly set aside. In case, defendants fail to file the written statement or to pay the costs, no further adjournment shall be granted to them.

7. 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 Whether Reportable. : Yes/No