IN T 127 Finstem I representat Gurinder S CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU the impugne Additional C 2021 titled the defence dated 17.01 Section 151 that the def submitted th Rule 7 CPC 22.04.2025 respondent. referred to dated 12.05 Civil Revision No.1612 of 2026 (O & IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR Civil Revision No Date of decision : em Infrastructure Private Ltd. sentative Vijay Pratap Rao Versus der Singh AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Ms. Pratula Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. I GUPTA J. (Oral) The present revision petition ha pugned order dated 20.12.2025 (Annexu ional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jag titled “Gurinder Singh vs. Finstem Infra efence of the defendant-petitioner was st 17.01.2026 (Annexure P-6), whereby n 151 CPC for recalling/reviewing the a Learned counsel for the petitio he defence of the petitioner has been itted that the petitioner had earlier filed 7 CPC, which was allowed by the learne .2025 on the basis of ‘No Objection’ giv ndent. Thereafter, at the joint request o ed to the National Lok Adalat, as is ev .05.2025 and 11.08.2025 (at pages 34 O & M) 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH on No.1612 of 2026 (O & M) sion :-07.04.2026 Ltd. through its authorized …..Petitioner …..Respondent NIDHI GUPTA ion has been filed for setting aside nnexure P-1) passed by the learned n), Jagraon in Civil Suit No.597 of Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.”, whereby was struck off; as well as the order ereby the application filed under the aforesaid order was dismissed. petitioner has inter alia submitted been erroneously struck off. It is filed an application under Order 9 learned trial Court vide order dated n’ given by learned counsel for the uest of the parties, the matter was s is evident from the zimni orders ges 34 and 35 of the paper book). VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.08 17.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ought to ha However, d noted that “ Learned cou the learned statement, t sufficient tim prejudice to as the petiti merits. At th may be gran to payment him if he is record. noticed abo negligent in already bee under Order Adalat proc events sugg availed of d advance the Civil Revision No.1612 of 2026 (O & It has further been submitted th to have been listed for filing of written ver, due to an inadvertent recording by that “No PW is present” and the case w ed counsel submits that when this fact arned trial Court, instead of granting an t, the defence of the petitioner was s ient time had already been granted. It is argued that the impugned o dice to the petitioner and, if not set aside, petitioner would be deprived of an opp s. At this stage, learned counsel submits e granted to the petitioner herein to file yment of some reasonable costs, as grav f he is not permitted to do so. I have heard learned counsel for In the considered opinion of this d above, indicate that the petitioner c ent in pursuing the matter. The record r y been allowed to join the proceedings Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, and thereafter th t proceedings at the joint request of t s suggests that the opportunity to file d of due to procedural irregularity rather It is a settled principle that pro ce the cause of justice and not to defeat i O & M) 2 tted that on 20.11.2025, the matter written statement by the petitioner. ng by the learned trial Court, it was case was adjourned to 20.12.2025. s fact was brought to the notice of ng an opportunity to file the written was struck off on the ground that gned orders have resulted in grave aside, would cause irreparable loss, n opportunity to contest the suit on bmits that one effective opportunity to file the written statement subject s grave injustice will be caused to el for the petitioner and perused the of this Court, the circumstances, as oner cannot be said to be wholly cord reflects that the petitioner had edings pursuant to the order passed fter the matter was referred to Lok st of the parties. The sequence of to file written statement was not rather than deliberate inaction. rocedural rules are intended to efeat it. Denial of an opportunity to VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.08 17.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document file written result in ser on merits. that one effe the written s order dated (Annexure P grant one statement, s be paid on o which is sta April 07, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spe Whether Rep Civil Revision No.1612 of 2026 (O & ritten statement, particularly in the fact in serious prejudice to the petitioner an In view of the above, this Court ne effective opportunity deserves to be g ritten statement, subject to appropriate co Accordingly, the present petitio dated 20.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) and exure P-6) are hereby set aside. The lear one effective opportunity to the pe ent, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2 id on or before the next date of hearing b is stated to be 10.04.2026. Disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, sh , 2026 Asija er speaking/reasoned Yes / No er Reportable Yes / No O & M) 3 he facts of the present case, would ner and would impede adjudication Court is of the considered opinion to be granted to the petitioner to file iate costs. petition is allowed. The impugned ) and the order dated 17.01.2026 he learned trial Court is directed to he petitioner to file the written f Rs.20,000/- to the respondent, to aring before the learned trial Court, erms. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.08 17.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document