IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-6277-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 09.09.2025 Malkit Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Balkar Singh and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Gurjinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby the defence of the petitioner/defendant No.1 was struck off and they have been precluded from filing the written statement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 would contend that the respondent No.1-plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 28.05.2024 is null and void and result of fraud or suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating of the suit property. The notice of the suit was issued to the respondents, but petitioner-defendant No.1 failed to appear before the trial Court and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.03.2025. Thereafter, he filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, which was allowed on 29.04.2025 and the case was adjourned for filing of written statements. Learned counsel further contends that due to bonafide mistake regarding the date of hearing, on the part of the petitioner/defendant No.1, he failed to file the written statement. He further submits that if the petitioner/defendant No.1 be given one opportunity, they would file the written statement and he is willing to compensate the respondent No.1-plaintiff by ways of costs.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case in hand.

4. The defence of the defendants/petitioners in the present case has been struck-off on the ground that the despite numerous opportunities written statement was not filed.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] had also examined the timeline for filing of written statement and laid down that in a non-commercial dispute matter, the unamended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the Courts to condone delay.

6. In view of above and in view of the settled law that the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, in the case of non-commercial suits, is only directory in nature and not mandatory, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be adequately met if one opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners for filing their written statement on the date to be fixed before the learned trial Court. No prejudice would be caused to the other side in case the suit is decided on merits, after affording due opportunity to contest the same. It is settled law that the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice.

7. Resultantly, in view of the law laid down above and keeping in view the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, the present revision petition is allowed in the interest of justice. The impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the petitioner/defendant No.1 to file written statement on or before the date fixed before the learned trial Court subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be paid to respondent No.1 – plaintiff before the trial Court. It is made clear that failing to file the written statement in terms of this order, the petitioners would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this order having any bearing on trial.

8. The revision petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

September 09, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU)

tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether re