IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2019-2026 Date of Decision: 27.02.2026 HARDARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS ......... Petitioners Versus JAGDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER ….... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Inderpreet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Talwandi Sabo vide which the defence of petitioners/defendants has been struck off.

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

“Today the case was fixed for filing written statement & reply to stay on behalf of defendants No 1, 3 & 4 subject to the last and final opportunity. However the same has not been filed despite the case called several times. Perusal of case file reveals that defendants No 1, 3 & 4 in the present case on 01.07.2025 but they have failed to file written statement and reply to stay application till date. The Ld. counsel for the defendants No 1, 3 & 4 for however since the stipulated period of 90 days has been elapsed from the date of his appearance no ground is made out to further to case for the same purpose. As such the defence of the defendants No 1, 3 & 4 struck off. From the pleadings of the following issues are framed...

Now for plaintiff evidence case is to 10.12.2025.”

3. 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.

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

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/revisionists contended that in the suit instituted by the plaintiff, defendants had put in their appearance on 01.07.2025 and has availed opportunities to file the written statement. However, the impugned order dated 18.11.2025, vide which defence has been struck 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 defendants/petitioners to file written statement in the interest of justice, so as to enable them to setup their defence to the claim of plaintiff. It is 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 they will file the written statement on the date fixed and he prayed that impugned order be set aside.

6. A perusal of the record shows that defendants put in their appearance on 01.07.2025 and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 19.07.2025 for filing of written statement and thereafter to 11.08.2025 and 30.08.2025. On 30.08.2025, both the parties made a statement that there are chances of compromise between the parties and the case was adjourned to 13.09.2025 for being taken up in National Lok Adalat. However, no compromise could be effected in the National Lok Adalat and the case was adjourned to 01.10.2025, on which date the case was again adjourned to 28.10.2025 for filing of written statement and last opportunity was granted. Again, the case was adjourned to 18.11.2025 and last opportunity was granted, on which date defence was struck off. In this manner, the case also remained pending for compromise between the parties, which could not be effected and defence has been finally struck off vide order dated 18.11.2025. However, 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