CR-6585-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sodhi Vikram Singh Tikka Sodhi Harkirat Singh CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Dilmrig Nayani and Mr. Yuvraj Dhanajaya for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU 1. Present civil revision has been filed by under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sahib, whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off. Brief facts 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present revision are that on 19.05.2025, the present petitioner/defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte by the trial Court. Subsequently, the said ex parte order was set aside on 17.07.2025 subject to payment of costs of The case was adjourned to 01.08.2025. On that date, learned trial Court granted an opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement, subject to further costs of ₹500/-. However of the petitioner was not filed. Taking note of the fact that the costs imposed earlier were not paid and that even after setting aside the ex parte proceedings, the petitioner failed to impugned order striking off the defence of defendant No.1/petitioner. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : Sodhi Vikram Singh VERSUS Harkirat Singh and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Dilmrig Nayani and Mr. Yuvraj Dhanajaya for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. Present civil revision has been filed by under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present revision are that on 19.05.2025, the present petitioner/defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte by the trial Court. Subsequently, the said ex parte order was set aside on subject to payment of costs of ₹100/ The case was adjourned to 01.08.2025. On that date, learned trial Court granted an opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement, subject to further costs of . However, on the next date of hearing, i.e. 28.08.2025, the written statement of the petitioner was not filed. Taking note of the fact that the costs imposed earlier were not paid and that even after setting aside the ex parte proceedings, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order striking off the defence of defendant No.1/petitioner. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6585-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 17.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Dilmrig Nayani and Mr. Yuvraj Dhanajaya, Advocates Present civil revision has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur , whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present revision are that on 19.05.2025, the present petitioner/defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte by the trial Court. Subsequently, the said ex parte order was set aside on ₹100/- to be deposited with the DLSA. The case was adjourned to 01.08.2025. On that date, learned trial Court granted an opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement, subject to further costs of , on the next date of hearing, i.e. 28.08.2025, the written statement of the petitioner was not filed. Taking note of the fact that the costs imposed earlier were not paid and that even after setting aside the ex parte proceedings, the avail the opportunity, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order striking off the defence of defendant No.1/petitioner. - ....Respondents the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order , Anandpur The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present revision are that on 19.05.2025, the present petitioner/defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte by the trial Court. Subsequently, the said ex parte order was set aside on to be deposited with the DLSA. The case was adjourned to 01.08.2025. On that date, learned trial Court granted an opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement, subject to further costs of , on the next date of hearing, i.e. 28.08.2025, the written statement of the petitioner was not filed. Taking note of the fact that the costs imposed earlier were not paid and that even after setting aside the ex parte proceedings, the avail the opportunity, the learned trial Court passed the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6585-2025 (O&M) 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had no intention to delay the proceedings. R remained out of C within the short span of time granted after setting aside the ex parte proceedings. It is contended that only one effective opportunity was given to the written statement and the consequence of striking off the entire defence is harsh and disproportionate. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to file the written statement without any further delay and also un all costs that may be imposed by this Court in order to compensate the respondent. Findings 4. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. The facts are not much in dispute. proceeded against ex parte on 19.05.2025. The said order was set aside on 17.07.2025 and an opportunity was granted to him to join the proceedings on payment of costs. Thereafter, on 01.08.2025, another opportunity was grante file the written statement subject to further costs. The petitioner failed to file the written statement on 28.08.2025, resulting in the impugned order whereby his defence was struck off. 6. The only question for consideration before this Court is wh trial Court was justified in striking off the defence of the petitioner in the given circumstances. It is a settled proposition of law that rules of procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to stifle it. Although the trial Cour its jurisdiction to impose costs and control its own proceedings, yet striking off the defence is a drastic step and ought to be resorted to sparingly, only when it is (O&M) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had no intention to delay the proceedings. R remained out of Country and could not arrange for filing of written statement within the short span of time granted after setting aside the ex parte proceedings. It is contended that only one effective opportunity was given to the written statement and the consequence of striking off the entire defence is harsh and disproportionate. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to file the written statement without any further delay and also un all costs that may be imposed by this Court in order to compensate the respondent. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The facts are not much in dispute. proceeded against ex parte on 19.05.2025. The said order was set aside on 17.07.2025 and an opportunity was granted to him to join the proceedings on payment of costs. Thereafter, on 01.08.2025, another opportunity was grante file the written statement subject to further costs. The petitioner failed to file the written statement on 28.08.2025, resulting in the impugned order whereby his defence was struck off. The only question for consideration before this Court is wh trial Court was justified in striking off the defence of the petitioner in the given circumstances. It is a settled proposition of law that rules of procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to stifle it. Although the trial Cour its jurisdiction to impose costs and control its own proceedings, yet striking off the defence is a drastic step and ought to be resorted to sparingly, only when it is -2- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had no intention to delay the proceedings. Rather, the petitioner had ountry and could not arrange for filing of written statement within the short span of time granted after setting aside the ex parte proceedings. It is contended that only one effective opportunity was given to the petitioner to file written statement and the consequence of striking off the entire defence is harsh and disproportionate. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to file the written statement without any further delay and also undertakes to pay all costs that may be imposed by this Court in order to compensate the respondent. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for The facts are not much in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 19.05.2025. The said order was set aside on 17.07.2025 and an opportunity was granted to him to join the proceedings on payment of costs. Thereafter, on 01.08.2025, another opportunity was granted to file the written statement subject to further costs. The petitioner failed to file the written statement on 28.08.2025, resulting in the impugned order whereby his The only question for consideration before this Court is whether the trial Court was justified in striking off the defence of the petitioner in the given circumstances. It is a settled proposition of law that rules of procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to stifle it. Although the trial Court was within its jurisdiction to impose costs and control its own proceedings, yet striking off the defence is a drastic step and ought to be resorted to sparingly, only when it is - Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the oner had ountry and could not arrange for filing of written statement within the short span of time granted after setting aside the ex parte proceedings. It petitioner to file written statement and the consequence of striking off the entire defence is harsh and disproportionate. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing dertakes to pay all costs that may be imposed by this Court in order to compensate the respondent. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for Admittedly, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 19.05.2025. The said order was set aside on 17.07.2025 and an opportunity was granted to him to join the proceedings on d to file the written statement subject to further costs. The petitioner failed to file the written statement on 28.08.2025, resulting in the impugned order whereby his ether the trial Court was justified in striking off the defence of the petitioner in the given circumstances. It is a settled proposition of law that rules of procedure are meant to t was within its jurisdiction to impose costs and control its own proceedings, yet striking off the defence is a drastic step and ought to be resorted to sparingly, only when it is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6585-2025 (O&M) apparent that the conduct of the party is contumacious and intended to dela proceedings. 7. In the present case, after setting aside of the ex parte proceedings, only one effective opportunity was granted to the petitioner for filing the written statement. The explanation tendered by the petitioner that he was out of countr has not been seriously disputed. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner was deliberately prolonging the trial or abusing the process of the Court. The inconvenience caused to the respondent can be compensated adequately by imposition of costs. merits would amount to condemning him unheard, which is contrary to the settled principle that justice should not only be done but also appear to have been done. Conclusion 8. For the reasons passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), the defence of the petitioner, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The present civil revision is allowed, s statement positively before the trial Court and also s the respondent before filing of the written sta the conditions, the petitioner shall forfeit his right to file the written statement. trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the same expeditiously. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 17, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) apparent that the conduct of the party is contumacious and intended to dela In the present case, after setting aside of the ex parte proceedings, only one effective opportunity was granted to the petitioner for filing the written statement. The explanation tendered by the petitioner that he was out of countr has not been seriously disputed. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner was deliberately prolonging the trial or abusing the process of the Court. The inconvenience caused to the respondent can be compensated adequately by imposition of costs. Denying the petitioner an opportunity to contest the matter on merits would amount to condemning him unheard, which is contrary to the settled principle that justice should not only be done but also appear to have been done. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), the defence of the petitioner, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The present civil revision is allowed, subject to the petitioner filing his written statement positively within two weeks from the date of passing of this order, before the trial Court and also subject to payment of costs of the respondent before filing of the written statement. In case of default in either of the conditions, the petitioner shall forfeit his right to file the written statement. trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the same expeditiously. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- apparent that the conduct of the party is contumacious and intended to delay the In the present case, after setting aside of the ex parte proceedings, only one effective opportunity was granted to the petitioner for filing the written statement. The explanation tendered by the petitioner that he was out of countr has not been seriously disputed. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner was deliberately prolonging the trial or abusing the process of the Court. The inconvenience caused to the respondent can be compensated adequately by Denying the petitioner an opportunity to contest the matter on merits would amount to condemning him unheard, which is contrary to the settled principle that justice should not only be done but also appear to have been done. recorded above, the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur Sahib, striking off the defence of the petitioner, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The ubject to the petitioner filing his written from the date of passing of this order, ubject to payment of costs of ₹5,000/- to be paid to tement. In case of default in either of the conditions, the petitioner shall forfeit his right to file the written statement. The trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law and Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE - y the In the present case, after setting aside of the ex parte proceedings, only one effective opportunity was granted to the petitioner for filing the written statement. The explanation tendered by the petitioner that he was out of country has not been seriously disputed. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner was deliberately prolonging the trial or abusing the process of the Court. The inconvenience caused to the respondent can be compensated adequately by Denying the petitioner an opportunity to contest the matter on merits would amount to condemning him unheard, which is contrary to the settled principle that justice should not only be done but also appear to have been done. recorded above, the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 striking off the defence of the petitioner, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The ubject to the petitioner filing his written from the date of passing of this order, to be paid to tement. In case of default in either of The trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document