##PAGE1##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)

CR-4104-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

110 CR-4104-2026

Date of decision: 15.05.2026

MANPREET SINGH ....PETITIONER

VERSUS

RAHUL KUMAR ...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)

Present : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner/revisionist.

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (ORAL)

1. This revision petition is instituted under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.04.2026 passed

by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide which the

defence of the petitioner/defendant to file his written statement was struck

off.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist and

have perused the material placed on record.

3. The relevant portion of the impugned order which has been

assailed is reproduced as under:-

“1. This order of mine shall dispose of an application filed

by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil

Procedure for striking off the defence of the defendant on

account of failure to file written statement within the

prescribed period. Briefly stated, the plaintiff has instituted

the present suit for recovery, injunction and declaration

against the defendant. The record reveals that the defendant

appeared before the Court on 10.01.2025 and was granted

opportunity to file written statement. Vide order dated

23.05.2025, the defendant was specifically directed to file

written statement within the statutory period. It is an

admitted position on record that despite lapse of the statutory

period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, and despite

VISHAL VARDHAN

2026.05.19 18:44

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:1)

CR-4104-2026

sufficient opportunities having been granted by this Court,

the defendant has failed to file written statement till date.

2. The defendant has filed reply to the present application

taking preliminary objections that the application is not

maintainable and that delay occurred due to circumstances

such as supply of documents and no-work day call. It has

also been pleaded that written statement has now been filed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record carefully.

Order 8 Rule 1 CPC mandates that the defendant shall

file written statement within 30 days from the date of service,

extendable up to 90 days for reasons to be recorded. The

provision, though directory in nature, casts an obligation

upon the defendant to act with due diligence and not to delay

the proceedings unnecessarily.

4. In the present case, the defendant appeared on

10.01.2025 and even thereafter, ample opportunities were

granted. The plea taken by the defendant regarding delay due

to supply of documents and no-work day does not

satisfactorily explain the entire period of delay. The record

reflects that sufficient time far beyond the statutory limit has

already been availed. The contention of the defendant that

written statement has now been filed does not, by itself,

entitle the defendant to have the same taken on record as a

matter of right, especially when there is inordinate and

unexplained delay. At the same time, it is settled law that

striking off defence is a serious consequence and the Court

must exercise such power judiciously, balancing the right of

defence with the need to ensure expeditious disposal of cases.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

of the considered view that the defendant has been negligent

in not filing the written statement within the prescribed time

and has failed to show sufficient cause for such delay.

Accordingly, the application filed by the plaintiff is allowed.

The defence of the defendant is hereby struck off under Order

8 Rule 10 CPC. The case shall now proceed further in

accordance with law. The plaintiff is directed to lead

evidence in support of his case. Case is adjourned to

06.05.2026 for plaintiff evidence.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist contended t