IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.01.2025 Raj Kumar and others …Petitioners V/s Jaswant Singh …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The petitioners assail the order dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P-8)

passed by learned Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kalka, vide which the defence of the petitioners (defendants) was struck off on account of the written statement not having been filed.

2. A suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners (defendants) from encroaching, blocking the passage/rasta, referred to in the plaint, was filed by the respondent-plaintiff.

3. Notice in the said suit was issued on 15.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) for 19.09.2023. The petitioners-defendants put in appearance before the trial Court on 19.09.2023 but despite repeated opportunities did not file the written statement. Ultimately, vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2024, the defence of the petitioners having been struck off.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that non-filing of the written statement was on account of certain circumstances which were beyond the control of the petitioners-defendants and that only because the signatures of one of the petitioners namely Babu Singh could not be obtained, the written statement could not be filed.

5. Learned counsel submits that on 21.10.2024, the defence was struck of, issues were framed by the trial Court and the case is now fixed on 27.03.2025 for evidence of the plaintiff. He submits that the rights of the petitioners would be gravely prejudiced if they are not permitted to file the written statement. Learned counsel submits that one opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file the written statement which shall duly be filed within a period of two weeks from today.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. There would be no necessity for issuing notice to the respondent, for in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, no prejudice would be caused to them.

8. Admittedly, notice in the suit was issued on 15.09.2023 for 19.09.2023. The petitioners-defendants put in appearance before the trial Court on 19.09.2023 but despite repeated opportunities the petitioners did not file the written statement. Ultimately, vide the impugned order dated

21.10.2024, the defence of the petitioners having been struck off.

9. As per provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”), the written statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of summons which is extendable up to 90 days. Order 8 Rule 10 lays down the procedure in case failing to present the written statement. In Kailash V/s Nanhku and others, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 379, the Supreme Court of India opined that the amendment in Rule 8(1) CPC would not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time further, as no penal consequences as such have been provided, the provisions being in the domain of the procedural law would not, therefore, be mandatory. It was held that ordinarily the time schedule should be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception and that such extension of time should not be granted as a matter of routine, especially beyond a period of 90 days. It was held that in case any extension is to be granted, the same could be for the good reasons to be recorded in writing may be in brief. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of India was again seized of this issue in the case of R.N. Jadi V/s Subhashchandra, 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 588, wherein it was opined that the grant of extension of time beyond 30 days is not automatic. The Supreme Court of India held that the power of the Court has to be exercised with caution and for adequate reasons to be recorded and extension of time beyond 90 days must be granted only based on a clear sat