127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:16.02.2026 GURJIT SINGH ...Petitioner Vs.

NIRMAL SINGH ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga, whereby the defense of the petitioner was struck off for non-filing of the written statement. The petitioner seeks relief for grant of one final opportunity to file the written statement and present his defense in the matter.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell dated 19.10.2024. Notice of the suit was duly issued to the caveator in the original proceedings, who appeared on 23.09.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant sought and obtained multiple adjournments on 13.10.2025, 18.10.2025, 10.11.2025, and 27.11.2025. Despite these opportunities, the petitioner/defendant failed to file the written statement even on 10.12.2025, upon which the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga, vide the impugned order, struck off the defense. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/defendant has filed the present civil revision petition seeking relief in the form of a direction to allow him one final opportunity to file the written statement and contest the suit, thereby presenting his defense on merits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that striking off his defense at this stage would cause irreparable prejudice and that he has substantial grounds which require adjudication, warranting interference in the interest of justice.

4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the file carefully.

5. As per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner/defendant was required to file a written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons. However, the petitioner failed to file any written statement within the prescribed period. It is further noted that the petitioner did not offer any explanation or sufficient cause for the non-filing of the written statement before the learned trial Court. Despite this, the learned trial Court granted multiple opportunities to the petitioner to file the written statement. Even after these repeated chances, the petitioner did not comply, which compelled the learned trial Court to pass the impugned order striking off his defense. In view of the above, there is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. The order is well within the discretion of the trial Court exercised in accordance with law. Consequently, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. As regards the second prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, seeking that, in the interest of justice, one opportunity be granted to file the written statement, it is pertinent to note that it is a cardinal principle of natural justice that no party should be left unheard. Every litigant is entitled to have an opportunity to present his case, particularly at the initial stage of proceedings, so that the matter can be adjudicated on merits rather than on procedural defaults alone.

7. Considering that the present case is still at an initial stage and keeping in view the principles of fairness and justice, the petition is disposed of with specific directions. The learned Civil Court is hereby directed to grant the petitioner one final and effective opportunity to file the written statement and contest the suit, subject to payment of costs amounting to Rs. 30,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,000/- shall be deposited in the account of the District Legal Services Authority, Moga, as part of public inter