CR-5694-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Mandeep Singh and Another Sukhchain Singh CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Raminder Singh Dhaliwal MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 defendants-petitioner failed to file the written 2. Learned counsel for the defendant respondent-plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration of his legal rights as per conditions of affidavit dated 30.05.2022 executed by defendant Mandeep Singh petitioners at the time of harvest season for harvesting mach pendency of the suit, to the Mediation Centre. As per the settlement the respondent to withdraw the civil suit f settlement. The defendants same. Therefore, they defence of the defendants (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : Mandeep Singh and Another VERSUS Sukhchain Singh CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Raminder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned 16.12.2024 passed by the Trial Court whereby the defence of the petitioners was struck off for the reason that the defendant failed to file the written statement even after the expiry of 90 days. Learned counsel for the defendants plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration of his legal rights as per conditions of affidavit dated 30.05.2022 executed by defendant Mandeep Singh in his favour to use the agricultural land of the defendants he time of harvest season for harvesting mach pendency of the suit, the dispute was amicably settled and the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre. As per the settlement the respondent to withdraw the civil suit filed by him, but the respondent backed out from the said settlement. The defendants-petitioners did not have the knowledge regarding the same. Therefore, they could not file the written defence of the defendants-petitioners was struck off. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5694-2025 (O&M) Decided on :-25.08.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioners. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned passed by the Trial Court whereby the defence of the was struck off for the reason that the defendant-petitioner statement even after the expiry of 90 days. s-petitioners would contend that plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration of his legal rights as per conditions of affidavit dated 30.05.2022 executed by defendant-petitioner No.1 to use the agricultural land of the defendants he time of harvest season for harvesting machinery. During the the dispute was amicably settled and the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre. As per the settlement the respondent-plaintiff undertook iled by him, but the respondent backed out from the said petitioners did not have the knowledge regarding the could not file the written statement and accordingly the s struck off. It is further the contention - The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned passed by the Trial Court whereby the defence of the petitioner the plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration of his legal rights as per petitioner No.1- to use the agricultural land of the defendants- During the the dispute was amicably settled and the matter was referred plaintiff undertook iled by him, but the respondent backed out from the said petitioners did not have the knowledge regarding the statement and accordingly the It is further the contention TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5694-2025 (O&M) that given one opportunity, he would file the written statement and he is willing to compensate the plaintiff 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case in hand. 4. The defence of the defendant struck-off on the ground that despite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the written statement was not filed. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 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 condone delay. 6. 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 nature and not mandatory, would be adequately met if one opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners for filing their 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. 7. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.12.2024 passed by t effective opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners to file their written statement on or before the date fixe (O&M) that given one opportunity, he would file the written statement and he is willing to compensate the plaintiff-respondent by ways of costs. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case in hand. The defence of the defendants/petitioner 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 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 ld be adequately met if one opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners for filing their 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 , 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 order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners to file their written statement on or before the date fixed before the learned trial Court -2- that given one opportunity, he would file the written statement and he is willing to respondent by ways of costs. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the petitioners in the present case has been off on the ground that despite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the case of Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] had also examined the timeline for filing of written 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 In view of above and in 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 ld be adequately met if one opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners for filing their 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 , 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 he learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners to file their written d before the learned trial Court subject to - that given one opportunity, he would file the written statement and he is willing to I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the in the present case has been off on the ground that 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 In view of above and in 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 ld be adequately met if one opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners for filing their 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 , after affording due opportunity to contest the same. It is settled law that the Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned he learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners to file their written subject to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5694-2025 (O&M) payment of Rs.5 clear that failing to file the written statement in terms of this order, the petitioners would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without thi 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) 5,000/- as costs to be paid to th clear that failing to file the written statement in terms of this order, the petitioners would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without thi 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. It is made clear that failing to file the written statement in terms of this order, the petitioners 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. 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 made clear that failing to file the written statement in terms of this order, the petitioners would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial s order having any bearing on trial. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document