IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (120)

Date of Decision:-05.03.2026 Rahul Bhatia ……Petitioner Versus Rajinder Bhatia and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Amarinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-14) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby the defence of the petitioner/defendant No.1 was struck off due to non-filing of the written statement.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and possession against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 and others. Notice of the said suit was issued to the present petitioner and others, who appeared through their counsel and the matter was adjourned from time to time for filing of the written statement.

3. Vide impugned order dated 01.09.2025, the learned trial Court observed that the petitioner had entered appearance on 27.09.2024 and despite grant of several opportunities, failed to file the written statement. It was further noticed that on 26.03.2025, the petitioner had undertaken to file the written statement on the next date of hearing; however, the same was not filed. Consequently, the defence of the petitioner was struck off.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was unable to attend the Court due to fracture of his leg. In support thereof, counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the medical certificate issued by Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar (Annexure P-15), indicating that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital owing to the said fracture. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in getting the suit adjudicated as such, the petitioner may be given one opportunity to file the written statement.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book, with their able assistance.

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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly that the suit pertains to the relief of partition and possession and that the petitioner has placed on record a medical document explaining his absence, this Court is of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, one effective opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to file his written statement. However, the conduct of the petitioner in not filing the written statement despite repeated opportunities cannot be ignored and, therefore, the indulgence is liable to be granted subject to costs.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, without commenting upon the merits of the case. The impugned order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-14) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, is hereby set aside, subject to payment of costs of ₹

5,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner in the District Legal Services Authority, Amritsar.

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 learned trial Court shall grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner for filing of written statement. In case of failure to do so, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

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

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

05.03.2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

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