IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 Raj Kumar @ Raja …Petitioner V/s Balbir Kaur and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Phillaur, vide which the defence of the petitioner (defendant No.1) was struck off on account of non-filing of written statement.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a civil suit for partition and permanent injunction was filed by respondent No.1- plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant (and six other defendants). The petitioner (Raj Kumar @ Raja) was defendant No.1. The suit was filed on 03.03.2021. However, the petitioner-defendant put in appearance before the trial Court through his counsel on 03.03.2025, as he was not having any knowledge of the suit having been filed against him, he being an NRI. He was served through publication. On the said date, memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner was filed. Learned counsel had sought time to file the power of attorney and written statement and the matter was adjourned to 21.04.2025. Again on 21.04.2025, time was sought on behalf of the petitioner-defendant for filing of written statement and the matter was adjourned to 31.05.2025. Last opportunity was granted. Eventually, by way of the impugned order dated 31.05.2025, the defence of the petitioner was struck off on account of non-filing of written statement by observing that despite having been granted last opportunity, the written statement had not been filed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being an NRI did not have the knowledge of the suit having been filed against him. He only came to know about the filing of the suit through publication and immediately engaged a counsel, who put in appearance before the trial Court on 03.03.2025 and filed his memorandum of appearance, after which the case was adjourned to 21.04.2025 and on the said date, power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner was filed and the matter was adjourned to 31.05.2025. On the said date, eventually, the defence of the petitioner was struck off by stating that despite last opportunity having been granted, the written statement had not been filed.

5. Learned counsel submits that though the statutory period for filing written statement had elapsed, non-filing of the written statement was purely unintentional and bona fide. He further submits that the case is still at its initial stage and, therefore, one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file the written statement, failing which the rights of the petitioner shall be gravely prejudiced.

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

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

8. Concededly, the petitioner put in appearance before the trial Court on 03.03.2025 and power of attorney was filed on 21.04.2025 and the defence of the petitioner was struck off on 31.05.2025.

9. No doubt, once the petitioner had put in appearance, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to file written statement within the time period as envisaged under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. However, it has also to be borne in mind that the case was at its initial stage and the evidence of the plaintiff is yet to be concluded.

10. As per the 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 service of summons which is extendable up to 90 days. Order 8 Rule 10 CPC lays down the procedure t