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

Date of Decision:-25.02.2026 Gurmeet Kaur ……Petitioner Versus Sukhdev Singh and Others ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravinder Singh Rawal, AAG, Punjab.

****

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 03.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, whereby the application for setting aside the order dated 17.04.2025, filed by the petitioners, has been dismissed. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2025, whereby the defence of the petitioner had been struck off.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents–plaintiffs had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner. On 07.03.2024, the petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court for the first time.

Vide order dated 17.04.2025, the learned Trial Court struck off the defence of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of the written statement. Further, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application for setting aside the order dated 17.04.2025 vide order dated 03.12.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate and reasonable opportunity to file the written statement. It is further submitted that on 18.04.2024, both the parties had agreed to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement through mediation. Vide order dated 15.07.2024, the report received from the Mediation Centre reflected that the matter could not be settled and thereafter, the petitioner was directed to file the written statement. It is further submitted that on 05.11.2024, the petitioner engaged new counsel and, on account of change of counsel, the written statement could not be filed on the said date. Learned counsel further submits that on 28.01.2025 and 18.02.2025, the written statement could not be filed as the District Bar Association, Patiala, had observed ‘No Work Day’, and consequently, the petitioner was prevented from filing the written statement within the prescribed period. It is contended that striking off the defence of the petitioner at this stage would cause grave prejudice to his rights and would adversely affect the fair and proper adjudication of the case on merits. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that one final opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file the written statement, in the interest of justice.

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

5. 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 expense.

6. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has adopted an overly strict approach in striking off the defence of the petitioner.

7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view that valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in the present case, the present petition is allowed, without commenting upon the merits of the case. The impugned orders dated 03.12.2025 and 17.04.2025, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, is hereby set aside qua the petitioner–Gurmeet Kaur, subject to payment of costs of ₹5,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services Authority, Patiala.

8. The petitioner-Gurmeet Kaur shall appear before the learned Trial Court on the date already fixed or on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court and, on production of receipt regarding deposit of costs, the Trial Court shall grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner for filing of the written statement. It is made clear that no further o