171 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8778-2025 Date of Decision: 12.01.2026 SHRI GANPATI SEWA SOCIETY AND ANR ....Petitioners Versus JATINDER MAHINDRU AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

Petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2 are aggrieved by impugned order dated 06.11.2025, passed by Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which defence of petitioners/defendants No.1 and

2 was struck off.

2. It was asserted that petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2 be granted one opportunity after ensuring adequate compliance of order dated

20.05.2023.

3. Admittedly, plaintiff/respondent No.1 had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2 from withdrawing any amount from saving bank account as well as FDR maintained with defendant No.3. On 06.10.2022 along with plaint an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was also filed. Vide order dated 07.10.2022, the Court decided not to grant ex parte stay order without hearing opposite side and had issued notice to defendants. On 18.10.2022 all the respondents had appeared through their counsels and matter was adjourned to 01.11.2022 for filing power of attorney on behalf of defendants No.1 & 2, for written statement and to file reply to stay application. On 01.11.2022, learned counsel for defendant No.3 moved an application seeking direction to plaintiff to produce on record the original documents. Copies were duly supplied and case was adjourned for filing reply as well as for arguments.

4. The application preferred by respondent No.3 for production of documents was disposed of vide order dated 16.11.2022, wherein plaintiff had submitted that demanded documents by the bank are in possession of petitioner/defendant No.2 who is President of defendant No.1-Society and plaintiff is not in possession of documents. The application was accordingly disposed of and matter was adjourned to 05.12.2022 for filing written statement by all the defendants. Matter remained pending for filing written statement and reply to stay application on 05.12.2022. On 05.12.2022, learned counsel on behalf of petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2 had moved an application for production of original documents. The matter was adjourned to 05.01.2023 and on said date written statement on behalf of defendant No.3 was filed and matter was adjourned for filing reply to application preferred by petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2 for production of documents as well as for filing reply to other pending applications. Then, the matter was taken up on 24.01.2023 when reply to application to production of documents was filed.

5. It was noted that similar application filed by defendant No.3 stands disposed of on 16.11.2022, therefore, no fresh order is required to be passed. It was further noticed that though defendant No.3 has filed reply, however, defendants No.1 & 2 were yet to file written statement and accordingly, matter was adjourned to 02.02.2023 for filing written statement by petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2. On 02.02.2023, again written statement was not filed by petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2 and application for striking the defence of defendants was moved by plaintiff. The matter was adjourned to 23.02.2023. It is worth noticing that on 02.02.2023, defendant No.3 had also filed reply to one application which was clarified that the same was filed against application preferred by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC by learned counsel for defendant No.3 on

23.02.2023.

6. On 06.03.2023, it was informed that defendant No.2 has since died and accordingly, matter was adjourned for impleading LRs of defendant No.2. Thereafter, matter was taken up on 11.04.2023. Matter was adjourned for filing reply to application filed by defendant No.1 for supplying the documents and also for impleading LRs of defendant No