IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Raj Gurmail Kaur ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Sher Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Narinder Kumar Vadehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff laying challenge to the order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana; whereby in an application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, defence of the petitioner has been struck off; and order dated 03.11.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana; whereby application filed by the plaintiff for recalling of order dated 04.11.2024 has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in passing the impugned orders, the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there was some miscommunication between learned counsel for the petitioner and the Court. To elaborate, learned counsel refers to averments as made in paras 8 and 9 of the present petition, which read as under:-

“8. That it is to mention here that there was some miscommunication between counsel of the petitioner and the court has marked the wrong attendance of the counsels, In fact the petitioner never appointed sh. Inderjeet Singh as her counsel and never sought adjournment for filling reply. There was no reason that why the petitioner should not file the reply to the application under order 9 rule 13 as the case was hotly contested between the parties. Whenever the counsel for the petitioner attended the court he informed that the case was adjourned for the service of remaining respondents. 9. That immediately when the counsel for petitioner came to know about striking off the defence, filed an application for recalling of the order dated 03.11.2024....................”

3. Learned counsel argues that under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, a Court has power to take a written statement on record though filed beyond time provided. It is submitted that the power of the Court or any other procedural enactment is not to be construed in any manner, which would cause injustice to either party. Merely because a provision of law is couched in negative language, would not imply mandatory character.

4. It is accordingly prayed that the Revision Petition be allowed;

and the impugned orders be set aside.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -

05.09.2011: Plaintiff had filed a suit for joint possession and declaration and permanent injunction on 05.09.2011 (Annexure P-1).

11.11.2011: Vide order dated 11.11.2011, defendant No. 3 was proceeded against ex parte.

29.09.2017: Vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2017, suit of the plaintiff was decreed ex parte against defendant No.3.

7. Thereafter, defendant No.3/respondent No.1 herein, filed application dated nil under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 29.09.2017. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, petitioner had put in appearance through counsel on 13.07.2018 as evident from zimni order of said date at page 55 of the paper book. Perusal of subsequent zimni orders from 08.08.2018 upto date of passing of the impugned orders show that petitioner had failed to file reply to the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC despite passage of 6 years; and despite grant of opportunity to file written statement on every date of hearing. Zimni orders also reveal that last opportunity was granted to the petitioner vide orders dated 10.07.2024, 12.08.2024, and 03.09.2024. Vide order dated 03.09.2024, even cost of Rs.3