IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (123)

Date of Decision:-09.03.2026 Hardev Singh and Others ……Petitioners Versus Shri Ram ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. Shehbaz Thind, Advocate, and Mr. Sultan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking setting aside of the order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the defence of the petitioners was struck off. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure P-9), whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to file the written statement to the amended plaint.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants. Upon notice, the petitioners appeared before the learned Trial Court. On 20.09.2022, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. Thereafter, the amended plaint was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on 10.10.2024. Vide order dated 22.04.2025, the learned Trial Court struck off the defence of the petitioners/defendants on the ground of non-filing of the amended written statement. Subsequently, the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to file the amended written statement was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 12.12.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not afforded an adequate and reasonable opportunity to file the amended written statement. It is further submitted that after filing of the amended plaint on 10.10.2024, the case was adjourned to 18.11.2024. On that date, the lawyers abstained from work and the case was adjourned to 12.12.2024. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 12.02.2025 and on that date, due to a holiday on account of Guru Ravi Dass Jayanti, the matter was adjourned to 22.04.2025. On the said date, the learned Trial Court wrongly struck off the defence of the petitioners.

3.1 It is further submitted that talks of compromise were going on between the parties and the respondent/plaintiff had agreed to withdraw the civil suit. However, on 07.09.2025, the respondent/plaintiff refused to withdraw the civil suit, whereafter the petitioners immediately approached their counsel and filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file the written statement to the amended plaint. It is argued that the lapse on the part of the petitioners was neither deliberate nor intentional and that filing of the amended written statement is essential for proper adjudication of the case. It is contended that striking off the defence of the petitioners at this stage would cause grave prejudice to their rights. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that one final opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file the amended written statement in the interest of justice.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper book.

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

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has adopted an overly strict approach in striking off the defence of the petitioners.

7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and keeping in view that valuable rights of the petitioners are involved in the present case, the present petition is allowed, without commenting upon the merits of the case. The impugned orders dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) and 12.12.2025 (