IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 128 Ashwani Goyal Satish Kumar & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No.1 seeking setting aside of the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte; dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure P3) whereby the application dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure P2) filed by the petitioner for setting aside order dated 29.11.2024, has been dismissed. 2. impugned orders have been wrongly passed against the petitioner as only one opportunity was granted to the petitioner for filing written statement. It is submitted that various applications filed by the parties remain pending before the learned trial Cour be filed. Only statement. Moreover, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ashwani Goyal Vs. Satish Kumar & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr.Ankush Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Revision Petition Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No.1 seeking setting the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure P1) whereby the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte; dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure P3) whereby the application dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure P2) filed by the petitioner for setting aside order dated 29.11.2024, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mpugned orders have been wrongly passed against the petitioner as only one opportunity was granted to the petitioner for filing written statement. It is submitted that various applications filed by the parties remain pending before the learned trial Court. As such, written statement could not Only one opportunity was given to the petitioner for filing written Moreover, service could not be completed and therefore, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2165-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 07.04.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No.1 seeking setting impugned order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure P1) whereby the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte; and for setting aside order dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure P3) whereby the application dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure P2) filed by the petitioner for setting aside order dated Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mpugned orders have been wrongly passed against the petitioner as only one opportunity was granted to the petitioner for filing written statement. It is submitted that various applications filed by the parties remained t. As such, written statement could not one opportunity was given to the petitioner for filing written service could not be completed and therefore, 4 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No.1 seeking setting impugned order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure P1) whereby the for setting aside order dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure P3) whereby the application dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure P2) filed by the petitioner for setting aside order dated Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mpugned orders have been wrongly passed against the petitioner as only one opportunity was granted to the petitioner for filing written statement. ed t. As such, written statement could not one opportunity was given to the petitioner for filing written service could not be completed and therefore, SUNENA 2025.04.09 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document written statement was not filed. examined as yet. otherwise grave prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. 3. 4. perused the case file in great detail. 5. petitioner. The facts of the 2 (real brothers of the petitioner) had filed a suit declaration to the effect that the suit properties have been orally partitioned; consequentially the Gift Deeds and Sale Deeds challenged. It is admitted by the petitioner that he had put in his appearance in the said suit on 30.11.2018. statement has not been filed till date ostensibly for the reasons aforenoted. Thereafter, the learned trial Court petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.11.2024; and subsequently, off the defence o giving following reasons: written statement was not filed. Even otherwise, amined as yet. As such, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside otherwise grave prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the he facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 (real brothers of the petitioner) had filed a suit claration to the effect that the suit properties have been orally partitioned; consequentially the Gift Deeds and Sale Deeds challenged. It is admitted by the petitioner that he had put in his appearance in the said suit on 30.11.2018. statement has not been filed till date ostensibly for the reasons aforenoted. Thereafter, the learned trial Court first proceeded ex parte against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.11.2024; and subsequently, off the defence of the petitioner vide impugned giving following reasons:- “5. Perusal of the file reveals that the defendant no.1 proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.11.2024 of this Court on suffering statement of no instructions by counsel for defendant no.1. The applicant/defendant no.1 has alleged that during the proceedings, plaintiffs admitted that they shall Even otherwise, no witness has been As such, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside otherwise grave prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. made on behalf of the petitioner. arned counsel for the petitioner and I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 (real brothers of the petitioner) had filed a suit dated 17.10.2018 for claration to the effect that the suit properties have been orally partitioned; consequentially the Gift Deeds and Sale Deeds were challenged. It is admitted by the petitioner that he had put in his appearance in the said suit on 30.11.2018. However, admittedly, written statement has not been filed till date ostensibly for the reasons aforenoted. first proceeded ex parte against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.11.2024; and subsequently, struck impugned order dated 21.03.2025 by reveals that the defendant no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.11.2024 of this Court on suffering statement of no instructions by counsel for defendant no.1. The applicant/defendant no.1 has alleged that during the proceedings, plaintiffs admitted that they shall 4 no witness has been As such, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and for claration to the effect that the suit properties have been orally were challenged. It is admitted by the petitioner that he had put in his edly, written statement has not been filed till date ostensibly for the reasons aforenoted. first proceeded ex parte against the struck order dated 21.03.2025 by was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.11.2024 of this Court on suffering statement of no instructions by counsel for defendant no.1. The applicant/defendant no.1 has alleged that during the proceedings, plaintiffs admitted that they shall SUNENA 2025.04.09 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document withdraw the present suit and hence defendant No.1 could not give any instructions to his counsel. This Court is of the considered view that the applicant/defendant no.1 stated a valid reason for his non statement has been made before the Court. Perusal of file reveals that defendant no.1 appeared through counsel on 30.11.2018. However, he had not filed written statement and reply to stay application till 15.09.2021 i.e. during the period of more than two and half years. Rather on alongwith defendant no.4 filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. When the case was fixed for arguments on the said application, he withdrew the said application on 02.05.2024 and filed another application on the said day under Section 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. The said application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2024 and case was adjourned to 19.11.2024 for filing written statement and reply to stay application on behalf of defendants no.1,2, and 4, subject to last opportunity. On 19.11.2024, the said defendants again not filed the written statement and reply to stay application, hence, case was adjourned for 29.11.2021 for filing the same and it was ordered that otherwise defence shall be struck off. On 29.11.2024, learned counsel for the defendant no.1 withdrawn his power of attorney on behalf of defendant no.1. Meaning thereby that the defendant no.1 failed to file written statement and reply to stay application period of six years from his app when he was under the knowledge that his defence is going to be struck off, his counsel withdrawn his power of attorney. Thereafter, when three witnesses were examined by plaintiffs, draw the present suit and hence defendant No.1 could not give any instructions to his counsel. This Court is of the hat the applicant/defendant no.1 has not stated a valid reason for his non-appearance as no such fore the Court. Perusal of file reveals that defendant no.1 appeared through counsel on 30.11.2018. However, he had not filed written statement and reply to stay application till 15.09.2021 i.e. during the period of more than two and half years. Rather on 15.09.2021, he alongwith defendant no.4 filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. When the case was fixed for arguments on the said application, he withdrew the said application on 02.05.2024 and filed another application on the said day under Section 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. The said application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2024 and case was adjourned to 19.11.2024 for filing written statement and reply to stay application on behalf of defendants no.1,2, and 4, last opportunity. On 19.11.2024, the said defendants again not filed the written statement and reply to stay application, hence, case was adjourned for 29.11.2021 for filing the same and it was ordered that otherwise defence shall be 024, learned counsel for the defendant no.1 withdrawn his power of attorney on behalf of defendant no.1. Meaning thereby that the defendant no.1 failed to file written statement and reply to stay application even during the period of six years from his appearance on 30.11.2018 and when he was under the knowledge that his defence is going to be struck off, his counsel withdrawn his power of attorney. Thereafter, when three witnesses were examined by plaintiffs, 4 draw the present suit and hence defendant No.1 could not give any instructions to his counsel. This Court is of the has not appearance as no such fore the Court. Perusal of file reveals that defendant no.1 appeared through counsel on 30.11.2018. However, he had not filed written statement and reply to stay application till 15.09.2021 i.e. during the period of 15.09.2021, he alongwith defendant no.4 filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. When the case was fixed for arguments on the said application, he withdrew the said application on 02.05.2024 0 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. The said application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2024 and case was adjourned to 19.11.2024 for filing written statement and reply to stay application on behalf of defendants no.1,2, and 4, last opportunity. On 19.11.2024, the said defendants again not filed the written statement and reply to stay application, hence, case was adjourned for 29.11.2021 for filing the same and it was ordered that otherwise defence shall be 024, learned counsel for the defendant no.1 withdrawn his power of attorney on behalf of defendant no.1. Meaning thereby that the defendant no.1 failed to file during the earance on 30.11.2018 and when he was under the knowledge that his defence is going to be struck off, his counsel withdrawn his power of attorney. Thereafter, when three witnesses were examined by plaintiffs, SUNENA 2025.04.09 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document for setting aside the exparte order. This Court is of the further delay in the present suit. 6. statements have been made the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings before the learned trial Court. Such conduct cannot be condoned. 7. 8. 07.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: the same counsel of defendant no.1 for setting aside the exparte order. This Court is of the considered view that it is apparent from the conduct of applicant/defendant no.1 that he has left no stone unturned to delay the proceedings of the present case and he is misusing the process of law. Also, the present case is more than six years old and falls under the category of Action Plan cases, as such, at this stage, allowing the present application, shall cause further delay in the present suit. From the above facts, it statements have been made by the petitioner. It would also the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings before the learned trial Court. Such conduct cannot be condoned. In view of the above, present petition is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No e same counsel of defendant no.1 filed present application for setting aside the exparte order. This Court is of the considered view that it is apparent from the conduct of applicant/defendant no.1 that he has left no stone unturned to delay the proceedings of the present case and he is misusing process of law. Also, the present case is more than six years old and falls under the category of Action Plan cases, as such, at this stage, allowing the present application, shall cause further delay in the present suit.” From the above facts, it is clear that misleading by the petitioner. It would also appear that the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings before the learned trial In view of the above, present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 t application for setting aside the exparte order. This Court is of the considered view that it is apparent from the conduct of applicant/defendant no.1 that he has left no stone unturned to delay the proceedings of the present case and he is misusing process of law. Also, the present case is more than six years old and falls under the category of Action Plan cases, as such, at this stage, allowing the present application, shall cause SUNENA 2025.04.09 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document