IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1491-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 16.02.2026 RACHANA DEVI ......... Petitioner Versus ANUPAM PRASHUN ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate with Ms. Rajvinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bathinda 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. Perusal of the file reveals that defendant was appeared in this case on 04.02.2025. Till date written statement has not been filed. Perusal of the file reveals that defendant has already availed numerous opportunities including last to file the same but no written statement has been filed. Now, there is no justification to adjourned the case further for the same purpose as the period of 120 days has already elapsed. In the interest of justice, defence of defendant is ordered to be struck. Now, the case is adjourned to 15.01.2026 for evidence of plaintiff.”

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, defendant had put in her appearance on 04.02.2025 and has availed numerous 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 her to setup her 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 have afforded one more opportunity to file the written statement. Learned counsel further contended that one more opportunity to file the written statement be afforded in the interest of justice, subject to payment of cost and she will file the written statement on the date fixed and he prayed that impugned order be set aside.

6. Defendant had put in her appearance on 04.02.2025 and she failed to file the written statement 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/defendant 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. For the delay and inconvenience caused to the plaintiff, he could have been compensated in terms of costs.

7. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to the defendant to file the written statement, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- 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 her.

8. The present petition stands disposed of.

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

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)

JUDGE

16.02.2026

Ali

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No