CR-697-2023 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-697-2023 Deepak Chopra ...Peoner Versus Puneet Chopra ...Respondent Reserved on: 14.07.2026 Pronounced on: 15.07.2026 Pronounced fully/opera.ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. H.S. Baidwan, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The plainff has invoked the supervisory/revisional jurisdicon of this Court under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India, to assail the order dated 04.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby the applicaon filed by the defendant in Civil Suit bearing CS-2134-2015, seeking permission to take on record the wri=en statement was allowed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the pares and have perused the record. 3. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the peoner - plainff that the learned Trial Court commi=ed jurisdiconal error in allowing the applicaon filed by the defendant for taking on record the wri=en statement, because the defendant had appeared in the suit as early as the year 2016. Instead of filing the wri=en statement, he made a categorical statement before the Court on 19.04.2016. Subsequently, he sought permission to withdraw the said statement. His applicaon was dismissed by the Trial Court on 06.02.2019. The said order was affirmed by this Court in revision on 16.05.2019 and admi=edly YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.15 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-697-2023 [2] a=ained finality. ThereaAer, the defendant also pursued other interlocutory proceedings including an applicaon under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Only thereaAer, in March, 2022, he sought to file the wri=en statement. It is urged that the wri=en statement was sought to be introduced nearly six years aAer the appearance of the defendant and aAer the controversy regarding his earlier statement had already a=ained finality. 4. The contenon is devoid of merits. It is undoubtedly true that the defendant did not file the wri=en statement within the period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. Equally well se=led is the proposion that the provision is directory in ordinary civil suits and not mandatory. The Court possesses discreon to permit filing of the wri=en statement beyond the prescribed period in exceponal cases in order to advance the cause of jusce. Reference may be made to Kailash v. Nanhku and others, (2005) 4 SCC 480; Salem Advocate Bar Associa"on, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344; and Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co. and others, (2018) 6 SCC 639. 5. However, the conduct of the pares before the Trial Court, is required to be noced. 6. The record reveals that the wri=en statement was actually filed and taken on record by the Trial Court on 25.03.2022. At that me, no objecon whatsoever was raised by the plainff. Neither any protest was recorded nor any request was made that the wri=en statement should not be accepted. It was only thereaAer that the plainff filed a reply dated 29.07.2022 opposing the defendant's applicaon seeking formal permission to take the wri=en statement on record. Thus, by the me objecons were filed, the wri=en statement had already become part of the judicial record. 7. A party who remains silent, when an order is passed and permits the proceedings to connue on that basis cannot subsequently seek to invalidate the same on grounds, which were available on the very date when the order was passed. The principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel are a=racted in such YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.15 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-697-2023 [3] a situaon. Procedural objecons are expected to be raised at the earliest opportunity. Having allowed the wri=en statement to remain on record for several months without objecon, the plainff cannot legimately contend that the Trial Court acted without jurisdicon in subsequently allowing the formal applicaon. 8. The Trial Court has noced that the wri=en statement had already been taken on record on 25.03.2022 and thereaAer proceeded to permit its retenon on record. Though the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court may not be happily worded, the ulmate conclusion cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdiconal infirmity warranng interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdicon. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the peoner that the defendant had earlier made a statement before the Court on 19.04.2016 and that his applicaon for withdrawal thereof had been dismissed also does not persuade this Court to interfere. 10. The rejecon of the applicaon seeking withdrawal of the earlier statement merely means that the statement connues to bind the defendant subject to its legal effect. Whether the averments made in the wri=en statement are inconsistent with the earlier statement; whether the defendant is estopped from taking any parcular plea; whether any admission contained in the earlier statement is binding upon him; and what evidenary value is to be a=ached thereto, are all ma=ers which fall within the domain of adjudicaon during trial. Merely permiJng the wri=en statement to remain on record does not obliterate the earlier statement nor does it amount to permiJng its withdrawal. 11. Equally, the plainff is not prejudiced by the impugned order. It remains open to him to rely upon the statement dated 19.04.2016 as an admission under the Indian Evidence Act, to invoke the principles governing admissions and estoppel, and to contend that any plea contrary thereto deserves to be ignored. All such quesons shall be examined by the Trial Court YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.15 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-697-2023 [4] on their own merits at the appropriate stage. 12. It is well se=led that the supervisory jurisdicon of this Court under Arcle 227 of the Constuon is intended to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdicon. It is not an appellate jurisdicon to substute another possible view merely because this Court may have exercised discreon differently. Unless the discreon exercised by the subordinate Court is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or patently illegal resulng in manifest injusce, interference is unwarranted. 13. In the facts of the present case, parcularly when the wri=en statement had already been taken on record on 25.03.2022 without any objecon from the plainff and the objecon came only on 29.07.2022, no case for interference is made out. 14. Accordingly, finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdiconal error in the impugned order dated 04.01.2023, the present revision peon is dismissed. 15. It is, however, clarified that all observaons made in the impugned order regarding the merits of the controversy are only prima facie. The learned Trial Court shall independently determine the effect of the defendant's statement dated 19.04.2016, the family se=lement, the alleged admissions, and all other issues strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of evidence led by the pares, uninfluenced by any observaons contained in the impugned order or in this order. 15.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 15.07.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.15 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document