Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Non-payment of costs or non-compliance with court orders can lead to the striking off of a defendant's defence. This is primarily governed by provisions such as Section 35-B CPC and Order XV Rule 5 CPC, which empower courts to strike off defences in cases of deliberate default ["Mamo Devi VS Ajmer Singh - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Mohd. Usman VS Shagupta Begum - Allahabad"].
Courts have consistently held that if a defendant fails to pay costs or does not file a written statement within the stipulated time, their defence may be struck off, especially if the default is wilful or contumacious. For instance, the costs imposed for non-filing of written statement had not been paid as a result of which the defence was struck off ["Mamo Devi VS Ajmer Singh - Punjab and Haryana"], and similarly, defence of the defendant to the suit is struck off due to non-compliance with court orders ["Venugopal Krishnamurthy VS M. Tejaswini - Current Civil Cases"].
However, courts recognize that striking off a defence is a drastic measure and should be used as a last resort. Courts have emphasized the importance of giving defendants an opportunity to be heard and to comply with court orders before such drastic action is taken. For example, the remedy of the respondents was to file an application under Section 128 to execute the order and not a petition to strike off the defence ["Pinchu Chandran VS Arya J. - Kerala"], and the Family Courts ought not to have hastily struck off the valuable defence ["Jijo Mathew Alex VS Anu T. Cherian - Kerala"].
Importantly, courts have clarified that an order striking off a defence must explicitly state that non-compliance will result in such action. If the order does not specify this, the defence cannot automatically be deemed struck off for non-compliance ["S. Rajesh Kumar VS C. Bakthavatchalam - Madras"].
In cases where the defence has been struck off due to non-payment or non-compliance, courts often allow the defendant to apply for re-opening or to challenge the order if they can demonstrate sufficient cause or if the default was not deliberate. For example, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same ["Mohd. Usman VS Shagupta Begum - Allahabad"], and the defendant may be struck off but can seek to file a fresh defence upon payment of costs ["Tirthajani Panda vs Bibhuti Shankar Padhi - Orissa"].
Overall, the key insight is that while courts have the authority to strike off defences for non-payment or default, such actions are subject to judicial discretion, and defendants are generally entitled to challenge or seek re-opening of their defence if proper grounds are established ["Gigraj @ Giga Ram Jain VS Ram Kumar - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Bapu Lal VS Ramesh Chandra - Rajasthan"].
Conclusion:A non-payment defence that has been struck off can, in certain circumstances, be reopened if the defendant files an appropriate application, demonstrates that the default was not wilful, or if the court's order did not explicitly bar future filings. Courts tend to favor giving defendants opportunities to be heard and to rectify defaults, provided the default was not deliberate or contumacious ["Mohd. Usman VS Shagupta Begum - Allahabad"], ["Bapu Lal VS Ramesh Chandra - Rajasthan"].
In the heat of civil litigation, missing a court-ordered payment—like adjournment costs or maintenance—can lead to a harsh consequence: your defense gets struck off. Suddenly, you're left without the ability to contest the plaintiff's claims effectively. But is this the end? Many defendants wonder: Non-payment defence struck off—can it be filed re-open? The short answer is yes, under certain conditions, courts may exercise discretion to reinstate it. This blog dives deep into the legal remedies, judicial precedents, and practical steps, drawing from key case laws to guide you through this complex issue.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on legal principles and case law. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Courts strike off a party's defense to enforce compliance and maintain procedural discipline. Common triggers include:- Non-payment of court-ordered costs, such as adjournment expenses or litigation dues.- Failure to comply with directions on maintenance, security deposits, or procedural steps.
For instance, in eviction proceedings, persistent non-payment of rent despite court orders can justify striking off the defense. As one case notes: Court can strike off defense for non-compliance with rent payment orders, emphasizing that defiance of court directives is unacceptable and justifies severe consequences. Venugopal Krishnamurthy S/o C.N. Krishnamurthy vs M. Tejaswini W/o Shri S.R. Satyanarayana Raju - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 93
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order VI Rule 16 and Section 151 grant courts inherent powers for this. However, this is not absolute—courts balance it against denying substantive rights. In a property dispute, the defense was struck off due to non-payment of minimal costs (Rs. 100/-), highlighting strict enforcement. Shashi Bala VS Hari Ram - 2002 Supreme(P&H) 1026
Indian courts hold wide discretionary powers to reopen or restore defenses, guided by fairness, equity, and justice. They typically consider:- Remedial Compliance: Paying the outstanding amount promptly. For example, even after deposit of costs, if other issues like non-filing of written statements persist, reinstatement may still be sought. JASPREET SINGH Vs MANPREET KAUR AND OTHERS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1295- Substantial Progress in the Case: Advanced litigation stages favor restoration. In Adjournment Cost - Striking off Defence, the court reinstated the defense noting substantial trial progress post-remedy. Kanshi Ram @ Jagdish VS Kamla Rani - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1007- Good Faith and No Mala Fide Intent: Genuine efforts to comply, not willful neglect.- Absence of Prejudice: If the delay hasn't harmed the other party significantly.
Courts have ruled that non-payment alone isn't always grounds for striking off. Non-payment of cost is not a ground to struck off the defence. Surinder Kaur VS Baljit Kaur - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1965 Similarly, in labor disputes: due to the failure of non-payment of costs, normally the defence should not be struck off and the Court is competent to enlarge the period. Mohinder Singh VS General Manager, Haryana Roadways - 2006 Supreme(P&H) 512
If your defense is struck off, don't lose hope. Here's how to seek reinstatement:
Submit a formal application under CPC Order IX Rule 13, Section 151, or Article 227 of the Constitution to:- Set aside the striking-off order.- Restore the defense citing compliance or exceptional circumstances.
In one case, petitioners successfully challenged the striking off despite initial non-compliance with rent payments, as the court quashed the rejection order. Venugopal Krishnamurthy S/o C.N. Krishnamurthy vs M. Tejaswini W/o Shri S.R. Satyanarayana Raju - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 93
Deposit the costs within the court's timeline. This is often the strongest ground: The primary remedy is the payment of the overdue costs or dues, often within a specified time frame, which can lead to the court’s favorable consideration for reinstatement. Kanshi Ram @ Jagdish VS Kamla Rani - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1007
Argue substantial case progress, oversight, or prompt rectification. Courts condone delays if equitable.
Not all cases favor reinstatement:- Willful Non-Compliance: Obstinate defiance, like repeated rent defaults, hardens courts. Venugopal Krishnamurthy S/o C.N. Krishnamurthy vs M. Tejaswini W/o Shri S.R. Satyanarayana Raju - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 93- Stage of Litigation: Easier at advanced stages with progress. Kanshi Ram @ Jagdish VS Kamla Rani - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1007- Context-Specific Rules: In family law, striking off for maintenance may be limited. Venkateshwar Dwivedi VS Ruchi Dwivedi - 2017 Supreme(MP) 984- Minimal Costs: Even small amounts like Rs. 2,000/- led to striking off, but reversible if explained. Surinder Kaur VS Baljit Kaur - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1965
| Aspect | Key Factors for Success | Supporting Case ||--------|------------------------|-----------------|| Primary Remedy | Application + Payment | Kanshi Ram @ Jagdish VS Kamla Rani - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1007 || Conditions | Good faith, progress | JASPREET SINGH Vs MANPREET KAUR AND OTHERS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1295 || Limitations | Willful default | Venugopal Krishnamurthy S/o C.N. Krishnamurthy vs M. Tejaswini W/o Shri S.R. Satyanarayana Raju - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 93 || No Jurisdiction | Family Court maintenance | Venkateshwar Dwivedi VS Ruchi Dwivedi - 2017 Supreme(MP) 984 |
A struck-off defense often means the court accepts the plaintiff's claims prima facie, drawing adverse inferences. Restoration revives your right to contest on merits, promoting substantive justice over procedural rigidity.
Yes, a defense struck off for non-payment can be reinstated, thanks to courts' discretionary powers. Success hinges on swift payment, proving good faith, and highlighting case progress. Precedents like Kanshi Ram @ Jagdish VS Kamla Rani - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1007 show courts prioritizing fairness when non-compliance is remedied.
Key Takeaways:- Pay dues immediately and file an application.- Gather evidence of good cause and progress.- Know context-specific limits (e.g., family law).
Facing this issue? Consult a lawyer to tailor these remedies to your case. Stay compliant to avoid pitfalls—procedural discipline ensures justice for all.
References:- Kanshi Ram @ Jagdish VS Kamla Rani - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1007 – Reinstatement post non-payment with trial progress.- Baljit Kaur VS Jasvir Singh - 2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 661 – Non-payment leading to acceptance of allegations.- JASPREET SINGH Vs MANPREET KAUR AND OTHERS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1295, Venugopal Krishnamurthy S/o C.N. Krishnamurthy vs M. Tejaswini W/o Shri S.R. Satyanarayana Raju - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 93, Venkateshwar Dwivedi VS Ruchi Dwivedi - 2017 Supreme(MP) 984, Surinder Kaur VS Baljit Kaur - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1965, Veena Rani VS Som Parkash - 2009 Supreme(P&H) 1287, Mohinder Singh VS General Manager, Haryana Roadways - 2006 Supreme(P&H) 512, Shashi Bala VS Hari Ram - 2002 Supreme(P&H) 1026.
#StruckOffDefense #LegalRemedies #CivilLitigation
Shri Bharat Bhushan Rai and another (supra), would come into the picture and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench, the defence of the petitioners-defendants would be liable to be struck off on account of non-payment of costs. ... It was submitted that the trial Court could not have struck off the defence of the petitioners-defendants in the main case. ... It was contended that as per the provisions of Section 35-B CPC, once the costs ....
non-performance.” ... In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that as and when any specific order is passed by the trial Court striking off the defence, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, but at the present moment, it cannot be said that its defence stands struck ... If a representation is made the court must consider it on its merits, and then decide whether the defence should or should not be struck #HL_STAR....
For all these reasons, I hold that in a proceeding under the DV Act, the defence can be struck off for non-compliance with an order of payment of pendente lite maintenance if the default is found to be deliberate and wilful. ... Panda, learned counsel relied on the following decisions in support of his submission that the defence of the Opposite Party should be struck off for non-payment of monthly maintenance: (i)....
struck off. ... Mukesh Jain (5), the Supreme Court allowed a Family Court to strike off the defence of the respondent, in case of non-payment of maintenance in accordance with the interim order passed. xxx xxx xxx 130. ... After referring to Kaushalya (supra) and a catena of decisions of the various High Courts, it is observed as follows: “120.Striking off the Defence (i) Some Family Courts have passed orders for striking off the #H....
However, despite the deposit of costs, the learned Trial Court struck off the defence of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of the written statement. 3. ... The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon whereby the defence of the petitioner-defendant was struck off du....
X filed under Order VI Rule 16 CPC in O.S.No.5660 of 2022 is allowed and the defence of the defendant to the suit is struck off. ... Therefore, the application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC had to be allowed and the defence of the defendant to be struck off, only on the conduct of the defendant, projecting obstinate non-compliance. 18. ... petitioners, filed under Order VI Rule 16 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeki....
struck off. ... After referring to Kaushalya (supra) and a catena of decisions of the various High Courts, it is observed as follows: "120.Striking off the Defence(i) Some Family Courts have passed orders for striking off the defence of the respondent in case of non-payment ... Subsequently, the Family Court, by the impugned non-speaking order, struck off the defence of the revi....
the defendant may be struck off. ... Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the defence has been struck out for non-payment of cost. It is not a case of striking out of defence for non-payment of cost but is a case where condition for extension of time and condonation of delay in making payment had not been fulfilled. ... The Court directed that if the defendants pay Rs. 150/- as cost to the plaintiffs, t....
There was repeated non- compliance with the said order. Thereupon after issue of show cause, the defence of the defendant was struck off. ... Therefore, the application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC had to be allowed and the defence of the defendant to be struck off, only on the conduct of the defendant, projecting obstinate non-compliance. ... (Emphasis supplied) The Court holds that non-payment of interim maintenan....
In the event of default by the petitioners, the case shall not be adjourned any further for filing of their written statement and consequently their defence shall be deemed to be struck off. 3. ... Div.), Bhiwani, whereby, defence of defendant No. 3A/petitioner has been ordered to be struck off. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit for possession by way of partition in respect of two storied shop bearing M. ... Therefore, he requests that if one more opportunity is gran....
The Court can only initiate action under Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. in such an event. In the case of Ravindra Kumar v. Renuka and Another, 2009 ILR (Kar) 4325, the Karnataka High Court has also held that defence of respondent cannot be struck off for non-payment of interim maintenance.
Non-payment of cost is not a ground to struck off the defence. The petitioners have been allowed to file written statement but because of non-depositing of an amount of Rs. 2,000/-, their defence has been struck off.
For non-payment of maintenance amount, defence of the respondent/husband is liable to be struck off.
this Court has taken the view that due to the failure of non-payment of costs, normally the defence should not be struck off and the Court is competent to enlarge the period. 4 in these circumstances, I allow this petition and the impugned orders dated 24.2.2003 and 15.9.2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala are set aside and the Labour Court is directed to proceed further with the case in accordance with law. In Manohar Lal v. Amarnath (2002-1) 124 P.L.R. 415 and Devi Bai Smt. widow of Ch. Mangha Ram v. Gurbachan Singh (2000-2) 125 P.L.R. 21.
Defence of the defendants is struck off due to the non-payment of costs of Rs. 100/-. The learned counsel for the defendants moved an application with the contents that he has no instruction to put in appearance on behalf of defendants in the case for today. Learned counsel for the defendant refused to make payment of costs despite demand of the learned counsel of the plaintiff.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
