CR-5732-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA National Highways Authority of India Saranjeet Kaur and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. K.S.Kang MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.11.2024 defendant-petitioner was struck off for the reason that the defendant failed to file the written st order dated 21.04.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dted 05.11.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the defendant plaintiff-respondent No.1 injunction restraining the defendant of plaintiff over the suit land and further restraining them from acquisition of the aforesaid land without National Highways Act, 1956 defendant No.1- department was engaged in compiling and sor are important for adjudication of the present case. However, he submits that defendant No.1 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : National Highways Authority of India VERSUS Saranjeet Kaur and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. K.S.Kang, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned 05.11.2024 passed by the Trial Court whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off for the reason that the defendant failed to file the written statement even after the expiry of 90 days and subsequent order dated 21.04.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dted 05.11.2024. Learned counsel for the defendant respondent No.1 – Saranjeet Kaur injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit land and further restraining them from acquisition of the aforesaid land without issuing Notification under Section 3 National Highways Act, 1956. It is further contended that -petitioner is totally inadvertent and non department was engaged in compiling and sorting of the relevant documents which are important for adjudication of the present case. However, he submits that No.1-petitioner is given one opportunity, he would file the written -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5732-2025 (O&M) Decided on :-25.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned passed by the Trial Court whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off for the reason that the defendant-petitioner ven after the expiry of 90 days and subsequent order dated 21.04.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling No.1-petitioner would contend that preferred a suit for permanent s from interfering into the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit land and further restraining them from acquisition of the issuing Notification under Section 3-A and 3-D of the It is further contended that delay on part of is totally inadvertent and non-deliberate as petitioner ting of the relevant documents which are important for adjudication of the present case. However, he submits that given one opportunity, he would file the written - The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned passed by the Trial Court whereby the defence of the petitioner ven after the expiry of 90 days and subsequent order dated 21.04.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling petitioner would contend that for permanent s from interfering into the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit land and further restraining them from acquisition of the D of the delay on part of deliberate as petitioner- ting of the relevant documents which are important for adjudication of the present case. However, he submits that if given one opportunity, he would file the written TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5732-2025 (O&M) statement and he is willing to compensate costs. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the gone through the record of the case in hand. 4. The defence of the defendant been struck-off on the ground that written statement was not filed. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] the timeline for filing of wr dispute matter, the unamended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the Courts to condone delay. 6. In view of above and in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, in the case of non nature and not mandatory, would be adequately met if one opportunity is gran for filing written statement on the date to be fixed before the learned trial Court. No prejudice would be caused to the other side in case the suit is decided on merits, after affording due opportunity to contest the same. procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. 7. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 05.11.2024 and 21.04.2025 aside and one effective opportunity is granted to defendant written statement on or before the date fixe (O&M) statement and he is willing to compensate the plaintiff I have heard learned counsel for the gone through the record of the case in hand. The defence of the defendant No.1 off on the ground that despite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the written statement was not filed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] the timeline for filing of written statement and laid down that in a non dispute matter, the unamended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the Courts to In view of above and in view of the settled law that the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, in the case of non-commercial suits, is only directory in nature and not mandatory, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be adequately met if one opportunity is gran for filing written statement on the date to be fixed before the learned trial Court. No prejudice would be caused to the other side in case the suit is decided on merits, after affording due opportunity to contest the same. procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned 05.11.2024 and 21.04.2025 passed by the learned trial Court nd one effective opportunity is granted to defendant written statement on or before the date fixed before the learned trial Court -2- the plaintiff-respondent No.1 by way I have heard learned counsel for the defendant No.1-petitioner and No.1-petitioner in the present case has despite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] had also examined itten statement and laid down that in a non-commercial dispute matter, the unamended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the Courts to view of the settled law that the provision of commercial suits, is only directory in I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be adequately met if one opportunity is granted to defendant No.1-petitioner for filing written statement on the date to be fixed before the learned trial Court. No prejudice would be caused to the other side in case the suit is decided on merits, after affording due opportunity to contest the same. It is settled law that the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned passed by the learned trial Court are nd one effective opportunity is granted to defendant No.1-petitioner to file d before the learned trial Court subject - by way of petitioner and petitioner in the present case has despite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) had also examined commercial dispute matter, the unamended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the Courts to view of the settled law that the provision of commercial suits, is only directory in I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice petitioner for filing written statement on the date to be fixed before the learned trial Court. No prejudice would be caused to the other side in case the suit is decided on It is settled law that the Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned set petitioner to file subject TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5732-2025 (O&M) to payment of Rs. made clear that failing to file the written statement in term petitioner would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this order having any bearing on trial. 8. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. August 25, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be paid to the plaintiff ar that failing to file the written statement in term would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this order having any bearing The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- as costs to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It is ar that failing to file the written statement in terms of this order, the would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this order having any bearing The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - . It is s of this order, the would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this order having any bearing TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document