Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Orders striking off the defence can be challenged if the defendant can demonstrate that they were unaware of the non-filing or that they were deprived of adequate opportunity (e.g., Nidhi Sawnani VS Harsh Sawnani - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5919, RESHAMJIT SINGH CHINNA Vs KULDIP SINGH AND OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 7297). Courts may set aside such orders to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Analysis and Conclusion:
In civil litigation in India, timely filing of a written statement is crucial. But what occurs when the written statement is not on record and the right to defence is struck down? This scenario arises frequently under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly Order VIII Rule 10, leaving defendants in a precarious position. This blog post delves into the implications, legal precedents, retained rights, and potential remedies, helping you navigate this complex area of law.
Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, a defendant must file a written statement within 30 days of service of summons, extendable up to 90 days maximum. Failure to comply can invoke Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, empowering courts to strike off the defence. This means the defendant is deemed not to have contested the plaintiff's claims, treating averments in the plaint as undisputed. Jitender Kumar VS Hemant Kumar Gupta - DelhiJitender Kumar vs Hemant Kumar Gupta - DelhiAbdul Rehman VS Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi
The provision aims to curb delays but raises natural justice concerns. Courts typically view it as a last resort, balancing procedural rigor with substantive rights. Gurtej Singh VS Amar Nath - Punjab and Haryana
When a court strikes off the defence:- No Denial of Claims: Material facts in the plaint are taken as admitted, as if no written statement exists. Manga @ Maga Singh VS Rani - Punjab and HaryanaHindustan Petroleum Corporation VS Satish Chandra Jain - Allahabad- Restricted Participation: The defendant cannot lead evidence or present a defence theory but may cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses and argue based solely on the plaintiff's case. Sahana Pal VS U. K. SAMANTA - DelhiMohinder Kaur VS Gurdev Singh - Punjab and Haryana
For instance, in a Supreme Court ruling, it was clarified: even if a defence is struck off, the defendant retains the right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses and argue based on the plaintiff’s case. Sahana Pal VS U. K. SAMANTA - Delhi
This limitation underscores the severity: the trial proceeds almost ex parte, though not fully, as the defendant remains present. Gouranga Ch. Adhikari VS State of Tripura - 2015 Supreme(Tri) 659
Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court, have shaped this area:- Upholding Strict Compliance: Multiple High Court and Supreme Court cases affirm striking off for persistent non-filing. Jitender Kumar VS Hemant Kumar Gupta - DelhiJitender Kumar vs Hemant Kumar Gupta - Delhi- Natural Justice Safeguards: Striking off should be exceptional, not punitive for delays. Principles of natural justice demand a fair opportunity. Gurtej Singh VS Amar Nath - Punjab and HaryanaManga @ Maga Singh VS Rani - Punjab and Haryana
In Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, the Supreme Court emphasized limited rights post-striking off. Mohinder Kaur VS Gurdev Singh - Punjab and Haryana
However, procedural law is often seen as directory, not mandatory. In one case: Procedural law is directory in nature, and the court must protect the substantial rights of the defendant. The court set aside the striking off order, granting time to file, citing prejudice to rights despite lack of diligence. Naresh Kumar VS Asha Ahuja - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 2042
Even with defence struck off:- Cross-Examination Allowed: Defendants can challenge plaintiff's witnesses, highlighting inconsistencies, but not introduce new evidence. Sahana Pal VS U. K. SAMANTA - DelhiMohinder Kaur VS Gurdev Singh - Punjab and HaryanaGouranga Ch. Adhikari VS State of Tripura - 2015 Supreme(Tri) 659- Arguments on Plaintiff's Case: Focus on weaknesses in the plaint or evidence. Gouranga Ch. Adhikari VS State of Tripura - 2015 Supreme(Tri) 659
A key observation: the closure of the right to file a written statement does not prevent a party from participating in the case by cross-examining witnesses. Gouranga Ch. Adhikari VS State of Tripura - 2015 Supreme(Tri) 659
Amendments Prohibited: Post-striking off, amending the written statement is generally not permitted, as it would undermine the order. Chanaki Sao Alias Chanakia VS Renu Singhaniya - Patna
Courts frequently restore rights under exceptional circumstances, emphasizing substantial justice over procedure.
To seek relief:1. File application under Order IX Rule 13 or revision under Section 115 CPC/Article 227, showing sufficient cause (e.g., counsel negligence, procedural lapses).2. Pay costs and commit to timelines.3. Act promptly to avoid finality. ANGOORI DEVI VS JAINENDRA GURUKUL PANCHKULA - 2016 Supreme(P&H) 3019
Legal practitioners must advise clients on these pitfalls, as delays can be fatal.
The striking off of defence for a missing written statement under CPC is a draconian yet enforceable measure, limiting defendants to peripheral participation. While precedents like those from the Supreme Court affirm its validity Sahana Pal VS U. K. SAMANTA - Delhi, courts often intervene to uphold natural justice, treating timelines as directory. Naresh Kumar VS Asha Ahuja - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 2042ANGOORI DEVI VS JAINENDRA GURUKUL PANCHKULA - 2016 Supreme(P&H) 3019
Key Takeaways:- Defence struck off ≠ full ex parte; cross-examination persists. Gouranga Ch. Adhikari VS State of Tripura - 2015 Supreme(Tri) 659- Restoration possible with sufficient cause and costs.- Prioritize compliance to avoid prejudice.
Stay informed, act swiftly, and consult professionals. References: Jitender Kumar VS Hemant Kumar Gupta - DelhiJitender Kumar vs Hemant Kumar Gupta - DelhiAbdul Rehman VS Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd. - DelhiSahana Pal VS U. K. SAMANTA - DelhiGurtej Singh VS Amar Nath - Punjab and HaryanaManga @ Maga Singh VS Rani - Punjab and HaryanaChanaki Sao Alias Chanakia VS Renu Singhaniya - PatnaMohinder Kaur VS Gurdev Singh - Punjab and HaryanaHindustan Petroleum Corporation VS Satish Chandra Jain - AllahabadNaresh Kumar VS Asha Ahuja - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 2042Surender Kumar VS Kunta Devi - 2023 Supreme(HP) 449Komal Gupta VS Amrendra Kumar Gupta - 2023 Supreme(Del) 5920Estate officer, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Rewari VS Rahul - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1940ANGOORI DEVI VS JAINENDRA GURUKUL PANCHKULA - 2016 Supreme(P&H) 3019Gouranga Ch. Adhikari VS State of Tripura - 2015 Supreme(Tri) 659Manpreet Kaur VS Surya Kant - 2011 Supreme(P&H) 344
Word count approx. 1050. This post draws from established case law for educational purposes.
#CPCLaw, #CivilDefenceIndia, #WrittenStatement
The defence of the defendant is hereby struck off. 25. ... In case, no written statement is filed within the extended time also, the Registrar may pass orders for closing the right to file the written statement." 16.Thus, a maximum extension of 90 days can be granted, which however is not a matter of right. ... Therefore, the plaintif....
Ishwar Singh', 2020 (1) RCR (Civil) 784, the costs imposed for non-filing of written statement had not been paid as a result of which the defence was struck off. The said decision was upheld by the High Court while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench. ... It was submitted that written statement was duly filed and only the reply to the application for pro....
I find that in case, the impugned order is allowed to stand and the petitioner is deprived of his right to file written statement, he will not be able to put-forth his defence to the case set up by the respondent in the suit. ... Punia and sought time for filing of written statement. However, despite having been granted sufficient opportunity, no written#HL_EN....
Sangya Ram and another, in terms whereof right to file written statement of the petitioner/defendant was struck of. 2. ... his father died before the institution of the suit, one fails to understand as to how the death of his father was an impediment in his filing the written statement after his service in the civil suit. ... The defence of the petitioner was ....
The order dated 8th June 2022 closed the right of the petitioner, as the defendant in the suit, to file written statement and struck off his defence. ... The order striking of the defence of the petitioner was passed on 8th June 2022, noting that no written statement had been filed till that date. ... Kanchan Devi, (2005) 6 SCC 705, the Supreme Court h....
Consequently, on the failure to file written statement, defence of the respondent was directed to be struck off vide order dated December 04, 2017 by the learned Family Court. ... As such, it is evident that the appellant was unaware that the written statement had not been filed and taken on record. ... It is further submitted that in case the #HL_STA....
Vide order dated 14.10.2025, the learned Trial Court struck off the defence of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of the written statement. 3. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not afforded adequate and reasonable opportunity to file the written statement. ... opportunity to file his written stat....
The learned Family Court, by the Impugned Order, closed the right of the petitioner herein to file her Written Statement and also struck off her defence. 4. ... Komal Gupta, closing the right of the petitioner herein to file her Written Statement and striking off her defence. 2. ... statement, in my opinion, it was a....
On some dates, the written statement could not be filed by the petitioner because of unavoidable circumstances. As a result, the trial Court has struck off the right of the petitioner to file the written statement and to defend the suit accordingly. ... Not only that, on the date previous to the last date, it was also specified that it would be the las....
He states that the Petitioner herein be permitted to place his written statement on record and the Respondent be compensated with the legal costs as otherwise, the Petitioner herein will suffer great prejudice as his defence will not come on record. 5.3. ... It is made clear that if the Petitioner fails to file affidavit of admission/denial of documents within the time sought from this C....
Thus, on striking off the defence, it is always open for the Court to consider those statements of the written statement other than in defence, which may include admissions. Therefore, it is not as if on striking off the defence, each and every statement made in the written statement would be struck off without reference to the fact whether a particular statement is in defence or otherwise. So the admissions made in the written statement could be looked into by the courts bel....
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file the written statement. He further contended that the revision filed by the petitioner against that order was also got dismissed as withdrawn. But, when the written statement was not filed, her defence was struck off. So, that order has attained finality and cannot be re-agitated in the present revision petition.
When the defence of a party is struck off or when the party’s right to file written statement is closed or when the party is visited with other penal consequences, this may have other effect but it is not that the said party is proceeded against ex parte. If a party wants to file an application, it is free to do so at any stage. No party can be proceeded against ex parte when it is present in Court. Furthermore, I am also of the considered view that the Court had no authority....
The Supreme Court in this decision, inter alia, observed as follows:- “…. …. In this regard, reference may be made to Paradise Industrial Corporation v. Kiln Plastic Products, (1976) 1 SCC 91. The effect of the defence of the respondent being struck off would be that the respondent would not be entitled to rely upon the defence set up by him in his written statement and the Court would also not give any weightage to the same. In the present case, the respondents defence having been s....
From 27.9.2010, maximum limit of 90 days was already over on 27.12.2010 itself. Therefore, defence of defendants is struck off, because no reasonable explanation is furnished for not filing the written statement within time, nor further reason for demanding more time is put forward nor written statement is opted to be filed within few days. Hence, for evidence of plaintiff, case be put up on 1.2.2011.”
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
