IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1324-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 09.02.2026 KULWANT SINGH ......... Petitioner Versus JASHANPREET KAUR AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Guneet Babbar, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Family Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which the defence of petitioner/defendant has been struck off.

2. Before proceeding further, the impugned order is reproduced as under:-

“Written statement not filed despite three opportunities have already been granted. Cost not paid. Respondent has already put in appearance on 08.05.2025 and period of more than 90 days has already been elapsed. Instead striking of the defence of the respondent straight forwardly, the respondent statement, subject to last opportunity, but of no avail. Accordingly, the Court has left no option except to strike of the defence of the respondent. Hence, the defence of the respondent stands struck off. To come up on 08.01.2026 for evidence of petitioner.”

3. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondent.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist and have gone through the material on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist contended that in the suit instituted by the plaintiff, respondent had put in his appearance on 08.05.2025 and had availed 3 opportunities to file the written statement. However, the impugned order, vide which defence has been stuck off is a harsh order and has far-reaching consequences and instead of adopting such a stringent course, learned Trial Court ought to have afforded an opportunity to defendant/petitioner to file written statement in the interest of justice, so as to enable him to setup his defence to the claim of plaintiff. Learned counsel further contended that in non commercial suits, the provision of filing written statement within a period of 90 days is directory and not mandatory and Court in its wisdom should

statement be afforded in the interest of justice, subject to payment of cost

and he will file the written statement on the date fixed and he prayed that

impugned order be set aside.

6. Respondent had put in his appearance on 08.05.2025 and he

failed to file the written statement and to pay cost and the defence was struck off. However, instead of passing a harsh order of striking off defence, the Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner/respondent to file the written statement in the interest of justice, subject to payment of cost as valuable rights of defendant are involved. In case, the defence is struck off, a party is not left with any remedy and is deprived of the opportunity to setup its defence to the claim of the plaintiff.

7. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to the defendant to file the written statement, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs and the impugned order is accordingly set aside. In case, defendant/petitioner fails to file the written statement within three weeks or to pay the cost, no further adjournment shall be granted to him.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)

JUDGE

09.02.2026

Ali

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No