IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 131 CR-9393-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:23.02.2026 M/s Sanat Realtors Pvt. Ltd. …..Pe33oner Vs. Global Impex and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM 25692-CII-2025 Allowed. Annexure P-11 is taken on record. Main Case: The peoner being the plainff in Civil Suit No. CS-254- 2024 tled M/s Sanat Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Global Impex pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi, has invoked the supervisory jurisdicon of this Court challenging order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P- 1), whereby the trial Court dismissed the peoner’s applicaon seeking striking off the defence of the defendants on account of non-filing of wri5en statement. 2. The peoner instuted the suit for declaraon and permanent injuncon on 18.03.2024. The defendants appeared through counsel on 09.04.2024, wherea8er the ma5er was adjourned for filing of wri5en statement. Instead of filing wri5en statement, the defendants moved an applicaon dated 24.05.2024 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejecon of the plaint. The record reveals that the plainff NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.24 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9393-2025 (O&M) -2- repeatedly sought adjournments for filing reply to the said applicaon and ulmately filed reply only on 04.08.2025. On the same date, the peoner moved the applicaon for striking off the defence. 3. The trial Court, vide order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P-10), disposed of the applicaon under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by direcng payment of ad valorem court fee; and by a separate impugned order of the same date, dismissed the peoner’s applicaon seeking striking off the defence. 4. Learned counsel for the peoner contends that in view of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the wri5en statement was required to be filed within 30 days, extendable up to 90 days, and reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.N. Jadi & Brothers v. Subhashchandra, 2007(9) Scale 202 to argue that extension beyond the prescribed period requires recorded reasons and failure to file wri5en statement warrants striking off the defence. 5. The submission is misconceived. 6. The legal posion is no longer res integra that the me limit prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC in ordinary civil suits is directory and not mandatory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and others 2005 (4) SCC 480, and subsequently in Salem Advocate Bar Associa)on Tamil Nadu v. Union of India
2005 AIR SC 3353 held that procedural provisions are intended to advance jusce and the Court retains discreon to permit filing of wri5en statement beyond the spulated period in exceponal circumstances. Even in R.N. Jadi (supra), the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural melines cannot be applied in a manner defeang substanve jusce. 7. In the present case, immediately a8er appearance, the defendants invoked the remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.24 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9393-2025 (O&M) -3- necessarily required adjudicaon prior to filing of wri5en statement. Pendency of such an applicaon constutes a valid and bona fide circumstance explaining the non-filing of wri5en statement during that period. 8. More significantly, the delay in disposal of the applicaon under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is substanally a5ributable to the conduct of the plainff-peoner, who repeatedly sought adjournments for filing reply. A ligant cannot be permi5ed to take advantage of delay occasioned by his own conduct so as to seek penal consequences against the opposite party. 9. The relief of striking off defence is penal and discreonary, to be exercised only in cases of willful, contumacious or deliberate default. In the absence of any specific direcon of the Court fixing a peremptory meline for filing wri5en statement coupled with deliberate non- compliance, such drasc consequence is not warranted. 10. It also deserves emphasis that the present suit is not a commercial suit governed by the regime of the Commercial Courts Act, where the meline for filing wri5en statement is mandatory and inflexible. In ordinary civil suits, the Court retains discreon to regulate procedure to ensure adjudicaon on merits rather than terminaon on technicalies. 11. The trial Court, while declining the prayer to strike off the defence, has exercised a sound and judicious discreon. The order neither reflects arbitrariness nor results in miscarriage of jusce. 12. The jurisdicon of this Court under Arcle 227 is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate Court has acted without jurisdicon, in excess of jurisdicon, or in patent disregard of law resulng in grave injusce. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that supervisory jurisdicon cannot be invoked to correct every procedural or discreonary order merely because another view is NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.24 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9393-2025 (O&M) -4- possible. Unless the order suffers from perversity or manifest illegality, interference is unwarranted. 13. The impugned order does not disclose any jurisdiconal error, perversity or failure of jusce so as to jusfy exercise of supervisory powers. 14. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. The revision peon is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 23, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.24 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document