CR-6768-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH M/s Artistic Décor and Others Neeru and Another CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Arkash Mani Garg MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 151 CPC has been filed by the petitioners praying for setting aside the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, whereby the struck off. Brief Facts 2. The brief facts, as narrated in the petition and accepted for the purpose of this revision, are Controller, SAS Nagar, was very next date, namely 21.11.2024, defendants No.2 to 4 were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte for non defendant was similarly proceeded against ex parties appeared through counsel and an application for setting asid orders was filed, which was allowed vide orders were set aside and the (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : M/s Artistic Décor and Others VERSUS Neeru and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Arkash Mani Garg, Advocate for the petitioner -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 151 CPC has been filed by the petitioners praying for setting aside the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, whereby the defence of the petitioners/defendants was The brief facts, as narrated in the petition and accepted for the purpose of this revision, are that a suit for recovery of interim rent assessed by the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar, was instituted by the respondents on 10.10.2024. On the very next date, namely 21.11.2024, defendants No.2 to 4 were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte for non-appearance. Thereafter, on 11.02.2025, the first defendant was similarly proceeded against ex parties appeared through counsel and an application for setting asid orders was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 08.04.2025 orders were set aside and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4/pet -1- OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6768-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 23.09.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioners. The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 151 CPC has been filed by the petitioners praying for setting aside the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior defence of the petitioners/defendants was The brief facts, as narrated in the petition and accepted for the purpose suit for recovery of interim rent assessed by the Rent instituted by the respondents on 10.10.2024. On the very next date, namely 21.11.2024, defendants No.2 to 4 were ordered to be appearance. Thereafter, on 11.02.2025, the first parte. On the subsequent date, the parties appeared through counsel and an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 08.04.2025 and athe ex parte defendant Nos. 1 to 4/petitioners were directed to be - The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 151 CPC has been filed by the petitioners praying for setting aside the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior defence of the petitioners/defendants was The brief facts, as narrated in the petition and accepted for the purpose suit for recovery of interim rent assessed by the Rent instituted by the respondents on 10.10.2024. On the very next date, namely 21.11.2024, defendants No.2 to 4 were ordered to be appearance. Thereafter, on 11.02.2025, the first parte. On the subsequent date, the e the ex parte the ex parte directed to be TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6768-2025 (O&M) joined the proceedings many as three effective opportunities thereafter to file their written statement but failed to do so. Consequently, the learned trial Court, fin after recording that repeated chances had been given, by its order dated 14.07.2025 struck off the defence of defendants No.1 to 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners conten written statement was not deliberate or contumacious but occurred due to genuine miscommunication and change of counsel are ready and willing to file the written statement and to fac interest of justice their defence ought not to be foreclosed. Findings 4. I have considered the submissions petitioners and perused the record. 5. It is well settled that the power to strike off power which must be exercised judicially and not mechanically must ensure expedition and prevent abuse of process, they must also be mindful of the need to decide disputes on merits wherever possible. The facts show petitioners were permitted to set aside ex parte orders and an opportunity to file written statement was given but the petitioners failed to file the written statement. sight of the fact that repeated non inaction on the part of a defendant would justify striking off defence. Equally, however, where t miscommunication which, according to the pet (O&M) the proceedings for filing of written statement. The petitioners availed as many as three effective opportunities thereafter to file their written statement but failed to do so. Consequently, the learned trial Court, fin after recording that repeated chances had been given, by its order dated 14.07.2025 struck off the defence of defendants No.1 to 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners Learned counsel for the petitioners conten written statement was not deliberate or contumacious but occurred due to genuine miscommunication and change of counsel. He further submits are ready and willing to file the written statement and to fac interest of justice their defence ought not to be foreclosed. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. It is well settled that the power to strike off power which must be exercised judicially and not mechanically must ensure expedition and prevent abuse of process, they must also be mindful of the need to decide disputes on merits wherever possible. The facts show petitioners were permitted to set aside ex parte orders and an opportunity to file written statement was given. Thereafter three effective opportunities were afforded but the petitioners failed to file the written statement. sight of the fact that repeated non-production of defence material or persistent inaction on the part of a defendant would justify striking off defence. Equally, however, where there is a plausible explanation, munication which, according to the petitioners, impeded timely filing, -2- for filing of written statement. The petitioners availed as many as three effective opportunities thereafter to file their written statement but failed to do so. Consequently, the learned trial Court, finding no plausible case and after recording that repeated chances had been given, by its order dated 14.07.2025 Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the failure to file the written statement was not deliberate or contumacious but occurred due to genuine . He further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to file the written statement and to face trial and that in the interest of justice their defence ought not to be foreclosed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the It is well settled that the power to strike off defence is a discretionary power which must be exercised judicially and not mechanically. While Courts must ensure expedition and prevent abuse of process, they must also be mindful of the need to decide disputes on merits wherever possible. The facts show that the petitioners were permitted to set aside ex parte orders and an opportunity to file hereafter three effective opportunities were afforded but the petitioners failed to file the written statement. This Court does not l production of defence material or persistent inaction on the part of a defendant would justify striking off defence. Equally, here is a plausible explanation, as here, a change of counsel and a munication which, according to the petitioners, impeded timely filing, - for filing of written statement. The petitioners availed as many as three effective opportunities thereafter to file their written statement but ding no plausible case and after recording that repeated chances had been given, by its order dated 14.07.2025 ds that the failure to file the written statement was not deliberate or contumacious but occurred due to genuine that the petitioners e trial and that in the of learned counsel for the defence is a discretionary Courts must ensure expedition and prevent abuse of process, they must also be mindful of that the petitioners were permitted to set aside ex parte orders and an opportunity to file hereafter three effective opportunities were afforded not lose production of defence material or persistent inaction on the part of a defendant would justify striking off defence. Equally, as here, a change of counsel and a itioners, impeded timely filing, the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6768-2025 (O&M) Court should incline, where feasible, to afford one last chance, subject to safeguards to protect the plaintiffs against further delay. Conclusion 6. In the circumstances and in th dated 14.07.2025 is set aside. The petitioners are granted one effective opportunity to file their written statement before the learned trial Court, on the date to be fixed by that Court, subject to payment of cost only) to the respondents. 7. With these directions, the civil revision petition stands allowed and disposed of. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 23, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) Court should incline, where feasible, to afford one last chance, subject to safeguards to protect the plaintiffs against further delay. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is set aside. The petitioners are granted one effective opportunity to file their written statement before the learned trial Court, on the date to be fixed by that Court, subject to payment of costs of only) to the respondents. With these directions, the civil revision petition stands allowed and Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- Court should incline, where feasible, to afford one last chance, subject to safeguards to protect the plaintiffs against further delay. e interest of justice, the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is set aside. The petitioners are granted one effective opportunity to file their written statement before the learned trial Court, on the date to be fixed s of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand With these directions, the civil revision petition stands allowed and Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - Court should incline, where feasible, to afford one last chance, subject to e interest of justice, the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is set aside. The petitioners are granted one effective opportunity to file their written statement before the learned trial Court, on the date to be fixed (Rupees Five Thousand With these directions, the civil revision petition stands allowed and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document