IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 Anu Jain and another .… Petitioners Versus Ms. Otaya International .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioners.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Additional District Judge, Commercial Court, Ludhiana, in Civil Suit No. 103 of 2022 titled as ‘M/s Otaya International vs. Anu Jain and another’, whereby the application dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) filed by the respondent/plaintiff for striking off the defence of the petitioner/defendants was allowed; and the application dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) filed by petitioner/

defendants seeking permission to file written statement was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case as discernible from the record are that respondent/plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No. 103 of 2022 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘M/s Otaya International vs. Anu Jain and another’, for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and for Rendition of Accounts and damages on 21.05.2022. Notice in the said suit was issued by the learned Commercial Court vide order dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner/defendants have appeared before the learned Commercial Court through their counsel for the first time on 18.08.2022. As the petitioner had failed to file written statement within the stipulated period of 30 days, the respondent-plaintiff had filed an application dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) for striking off the defence of the petitioner/ defendants; whereas, the petitioner-defendants have also filed an application of even date i.e. 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) seeking permission to file written statement. Vide impugned order dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P-9), the learned trial Court while allowing the application (Annexure P-4) filed by the respondent/plaintiff, dismissed the application (Annexure P-5) filed by petitioner/defendants; and defence of the petitioners was struck off.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia, submits that the petitioners would be seriously prejudiced, if they are not allowed to put forth their case by filing written statement. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Shivalik Silicia and others vs. Anjali Singhal, Law Finder Doc ID# 2628710, had granted opportunity to file reply to the petitioner therein upon imposition of costs. Thus, it is prayed that in the present case also, the petitioner/defendants may be granted one effective opportunity to file written statement, subject to payment of costs.

4. Heard.

5. Perusal of the case file reveals that respondent/plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No. 103 of 2022 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘M/s Otaya International vs. Anu Jain and another’, for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and for Rendition of Accounts and damages on 21.05.2022; and notice in the said suit was issued by the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner/ defendants have appeared before the learned trial Court through their counsel for the first time on 18.08.2022 and the case was adjourned for

30.08.2022 for filing the written statement.

6. Thereafter, from 30.08.2022 to 09.01.2023 despite grant of numerous opportunities the petitioners have not filed their written statement, as is evident from the zimni orders (Annexure P-3, Colly.). Accordingly, the respondent-plaintiff had filed the instant application dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) for striking of the defence of the petitioner/defendants whereas; the petitioner-defendants have filed an application of even date i.e. 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) seeking permission to file written statement. Vide impugned order dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P-9), the learned trial Court while allowing the application (Annexure P-4) filed by the respondent/pl