CR-6349-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sher Khan Smt. Gafondi and CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 Division, Hathin District was struck off statement has already been 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent restraining the petitioner and peaceful and lawful also restrained from not encroaching construction over more than their share petitioner/defendant No.1 and proform before the trial Court on further submits that due to out statement could not be filed (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS Smt. Gafondi and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Hathin District Palwal, whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off on the ground that statutory period of 90 days for filing written statement has already been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 -plaintiff preferred a suit for restraining the petitioner and proforma-respondent No.2 from interfering into peaceful and lawful ownership and possession of plaintiff also restrained from not encroaching the suit property construction over more than their share. It is further contended that upon notice /defendant No.1 and proforma- respondent No2/ before the trial Court on 04.08.2020 and sought time to file written statement. He further submits that due to out-break of pandemic COVID statement could not be filed. He further submits that -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6349-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 11.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior whereby the defence of the petitioners/defendant on the ground that statutory period of 90 days for filing written /defendant No.1 would contend that for permanent injunction and for respondent No.2 from interfering into ownership and possession of plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the suit property by way of raising It is further contended that upon notice pondent No2/defendant No.2 appeared and sought time to file written statement. He break of pandemic COVID-19, the written . He further submits that in the year 2023, - The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned Senior /defendants on the ground that statutory period of 90 days for filing written would contend that permanent injunction and for respondent No.2 from interfering into No.1 and by way of raising It is further contended that upon notice appeared and sought time to file written statement. He 19, the written r 2023, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6349-2025 (O&M) respondent/defendant No.2 (real brother of the petitioner) was expired and the counsel, who was engaged by of the case. Learned counsel further submits that on 27.03.2023, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner and statement and reply to the injunction further the contention that the date of the impunged order is wrongly mentioned as 21.03.2023, whe on 21.03.2024. 3. Learned counsel further submits that be given one opportunity, compensate the 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case in hand. 5. The defence of the defendant struck-off on the ground that desp written statement was not filed 6. Order VIII Rule 10 CPC reads as under: “10. for by Court required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronounce a decree shall be drawn (O&M) respondent/defendant No.2 (real brother of the petitioner) was expired and the was engaged by him did not inform the petitioner regarding the Learned counsel further submits that on 27.03.2023, last opportunity granted to the petitioner and proforma-respondent No.2 for filing written statement and reply to the injunction application further the contention that the date of the impunged order is wrongly mentioned as 21.03.2023, whereas it is clear from the orders that actually the order was passed Learned counsel further submits that given one opportunity, he would file the written statement and compensate the respondent-plaintiff by ways of costs I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case in hand. The defence of the defendants/petitioner on the ground that despite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the written statement was not filed. Order VIII Rule 10 CPC reads as under: 10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.—Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronounce a decree shall be drawn up.” -2- respondent/defendant No.2 (real brother of the petitioner) was expired and the him did not inform the petitioner regarding the status Learned counsel further submits that on 27.03.2023, last opportunity respondent No.2 for filing written application and stay was also extended. It is further the contention that the date of the impunged order is wrongly mentioned as reas it is clear from the orders that actually the order was passed Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner/defendant No.1 would file the written statement and he is willing to by ways of costs as. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the petitioners in the present case has been ite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the Order VIII Rule 10 CPC reads as under:- Procedure when party fails to present written statement called Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment - respondent/defendant No.2 (real brother of the petitioner) was expired and the status Learned counsel further submits that on 27.03.2023, last opportunity respondent No.2 for filing written extended. It is further the contention that the date of the impunged order is wrongly mentioned as reas it is clear from the orders that actually the order was passed /defendant No.1 willing to I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the in the present case has been ite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the Procedure when party fails to present written statement called Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation ment of such judgment TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6349-2025 (O&M) 7. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner failed to file the written statement despite being granted nearly seven opportunities to do so. not in dispute that written statement was not f the defence was struck off. Not only this, the present revision petition has been instituted after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1 ½ years, reflecting gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. In view o made out to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to grant the petitioner an opportunity to file written statement at this belated stage, when the for plaintiff’s evidence devoid of any merit. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 11, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner failed to file the written statement despite being granted nearly seven opportunities to do so. not in dispute that written statement was not filed within the prescribed period and the defence was struck off. Not only this, the present revision petition has been instituted after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1 ½ years, reflecting gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. In view o made out to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to grant the petitioner an opportunity to file written statement at this belated stage, when the for plaintiff’s evidence. Accordingly, the present civil revision is dismissed devoid of any merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner failed to file the written statement despite being granted nearly seven opportunities to do so. It is iled within the prescribed period and the defence was struck off. Not only this, the present revision petition has been instituted after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1 ½ years, reflecting gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. In view of these two aspects, no ground is made out to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to grant the petitioner an opportunity to file written statement at this belated stage, when the case is fixed Accordingly, the present civil revision is dismissed being Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner failed to file the It is iled within the prescribed period and the defence was struck off. Not only this, the present revision petition has been instituted after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1 ½ years, reflecting gross f these two aspects, no ground is In view of the above, I do not find any ground to grant the petitioner fixed being TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document