IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (131)

Date of Decision:-14.01.2026 Mohinder Singh and others ……Petitioners Versus Ranjit Singh ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Titiksha, Advocate for the petitioners.

***

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 10.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar whereby the defence of the petitioners was struck off due to non-filing of the written statement.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of ₹28,80,564/- along with interest against the petitioners. Notice of the said suit was given to the present petitioners who appeared through their counsel on 15.07.2025 and thereafter, the case was fixed for filing of power of attorney as well as for written statement. Further a perusal of the interim order dated 08.08.2025 shows that written statement was not filed and as such again the case was adjourned to 09.09.2025 for filing of written statement. That on 09.09.2025, instead of filing the written statement, the application under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC was moved and the case was adjourned to 13.10.2025 for filing of written statement and reply of the said application. That on 13.10.2025, reply of the said application was not filed and the case was adjourned to 13.11.2025 for filing the reply. That on 13.11.2025, reply to the aforesaid application was not filed and learned counsel for the plaintiff suffered a statement that copy of plaint and required documents had already been provided through whatsapp to the counsel for defendant and also supplied physical copies of the same in the Court. Accordingly, the said application was disposed of. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 10.12.2025 for filing of written statement on behalf of defendants No.1 to 4, subject to last opportunity. However, on 10.12.2025, written statement was not filed and as such the defence of defendants No. 1 to 4 was ordered to be struck off and the case was adjourned to 15.01.2026 for evidence of plaintiff. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 and his wife remained sick and due to that reason, the written statement before learned trial Court could not be filed by the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners were not afforded adequate and reasonable opportunity to file the written statement. It is contended that striking off the petitioners’ 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 petitioners are involved, it is necessary to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioners for filing of written statement.

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

5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the case record, this Court is of the considered view that, since valuable rights of the petitioners 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.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, without commenting upon the merits of the case. The impugned order dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, is hereby set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioners in the District Legal Services Authority, SAS Nagar.

7. The petitioners shall appear before the learned trial Court on the date fixed and on their production of receipt qua deposition of costs,