IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.10.2025 Swaranjit Kaur @ Sawarnjit Kaur and another ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Gurpreet Kaur @ Arshpreet Kaur ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Shrome Garg, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Shehbaz Thind, Advocate for the respondent through VC.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by defendants seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Malerkotla in Civil Suit No. 908 of 2019 (Gurpreet Kaur @ Arshpreet Kaur vs. Sarabjit Singh and another); whereby learned Trial Court has ordered that the defence of the petitioners-defendants stands struck off and written statement already filed be not taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as only 5 adjournments had been taken by the petitioners to file written statement. It is submitted that the said adjournments were taken due to the fact that the application filed by the respondent under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC for appointment of Guardian was pending. Petitioners had been granted last opportunity to file written statement vide zimni order dated 19.04.2023 (Annexure P-3). Accordingly, written statement was duly filed on 5.5.2023. This fact is recorded by the learned Trial Court in the zimni order dated 05.05.2023 (Annexure P-5). However, the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate this fact while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-8). Moreover, the matter got delayed as in the meantime, the plaintiff had filed application for striking off defence of the petitioners. Therefore, there was no intentional delay caused by the petitioners in filing the written statement. He accordingly prays that the present Civil Revision Petition be allowed; and the impugned order be set aside in the interest of justice and being contrary to the facts on record.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the suit has been pending since 2019 and despite passing of 6 years, petitioners had failed to file written statement. It is accordingly submitted that the present Civil Revision deserves to be dismissed as the impugned order suffers from no error.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.

5. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail.

6. I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The plaintiff/sole respondent herein had filed a Suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction on dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, as the plaintiff is a minor, she had filed an application under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC for appointment of Guardian; which was disposed of by the learned trial court only vide order dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure P-2). The record of the case shows that thereafter written statement was not filed by the petitioners on 17.08.2022, 14.10.2022, 13.12.2022 and 19.01.2023. Accordingly, vide order dated 19.04.2023 (Annexure P-3), learned Trial Court had directed as follows: -

“Written statement not filed. Ld counsel for defendant seeks adjournment as he is quite unwell. Request considered and allowed. Now case is adjourned to 05.05.2023 for filing written statement. It shall be treated as last opportunity else defence shall be struck off. Dated 19.04.2023. (Krishnanuja Mittal) Brejesh Kumar CJJD-cum-JMIC, Malerkotla Stenographer Gr.-II UID Code-PB-0384.

At this stage, file taken up again as ld counsel for plaintiff/applicant filed an application for striking off the defence of the defendants. Copy supplied. Now to come upon 05.05.2023 the date already fixed for filing reply to the said application.

Dated 19.04.2023. (Krishnanuja Mittal) Brejesh Kumar CJJD-cum-JMIC, Malerkotla Stenographer Gr.-II UID Code-PB-0384.”

7. Thereafter, vide zimni ord