IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (118)

Date of Decision:-20.02.2026 Mahima Singh @ Mehama Singh ……Petitioner Versus Krishna Devi and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Ankit Bishnot, Advocate (Joined through Video Conferencing) with Mr. Sukhveer S. Killianwali, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

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 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malout, defence of the petitioner was struck off due to non-filing of the written statement and for setting-aside the order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling of order dated

20.02.2024 has been dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession along with permanent injunction against the present petitioner/defendant. Notice of the said suit was issued to the defendant, who appeared through his counsel and sought time to file the written statement. However, as per the interim order dated 20.02.2024, despite being granted the last opportunity, the defendant failed to file the written statement. Observing that the defendant had availed numerous opportunities and had not shown any justification for further indulgence, the learned trial Court struck off his defence and adjourned the matter for the plaintiffs’ evidence.

3. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner/ defendant for setting-aside the order dated 20.02.2024 but the same was dismissed by holding that the petitioner/defendant had availed nine opportunities for filing the written statement including last opportunity and the power to recall the order is not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to one or the other reasons, the petitioner/defendant through his counsel could not file the written statement. He further submits that striking off the petitioner’s defence at this stage would cause grave prejudice to their rights and adversely affect the fair trial of the case. Thus, for proper adjudication of the matter and in view of the fact that valuable rights of the petitioner are involved, it is necessary to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner for filing of written statement.

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

6. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to the respondents as it would unnecessarily delay the proceedings and also entail additional expenses for the respondents.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the case record, this Court is of the considered view that, since valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in the present case, it would be in the interest of justice to grant one effective opportunity for filing of written statement in the suit pending before the learned trial Court.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, without commenting upon the merits of the case. The impugned order dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malout, is hereby set aside, subject to payment of costs of ₹10,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner in the District Legal Services Authority, Malout.

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

10. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malout, for compliance.

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

20.02.2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

kanchan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No