Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 96828 (PNJ)

MAN SINGH AND ANOTHER v. REKHA AND OTHERS

CR/5998/2025 · 2025-09-01

Mandeep Pannu

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CR-5998-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Man Singh and Another Rekha and Another CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioners. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 District Palwal, and they have been precluded from filing the written statement. 2. Learned counsel for the defendant respondents-plaintiffs preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the agricultural land mentioned in the plaint. In the said suit, upon notice on 17.01.2025, the defendants matter was adjourned to 18.01.2025, on which date they sought time to file written statement. The matter was adjourned to 24.02.2025 for filing of written statement. However, as the Presiding Officer was to go on leave, the matte 21.02.2025, instead of 24.02.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 21.03.2025 Learned counsel fairly conceded that despite the numerous opportunities, the defendants-petitioners have failed to file the written statement, but they never ha any intention not to file the written statement. He further submits that if the (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : Man Singh and Another VERSUS and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned 11.04.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal, District Palwal, whereby the defence of the defendant and they have been precluded from filing the written statement. Learned counsel for the defendants plaintiffs preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the agricultural land mentioned in the plaint. In the said suit, upon notice on 17.01.2025, the defendants-petitioners have filed matter was adjourned to 18.01.2025, on which date they sought time to file written statement. The matter was adjourned to 24.02.2025 for filing of written statement. However, as the Presiding Officer was to go on leave, the matte 21.02.2025, instead of 24.02.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 21.03.2025 Learned counsel fairly conceded that despite the numerous opportunities, the petitioners have failed to file the written statement, but they never ha any intention not to file the written statement. He further submits that if the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5998-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 01.09.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioners. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal, whereby the defence of the defendants-petitioners was struck off and they have been precluded from filing the written statement. s-petitioners would contend that plaintiffs preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the agricultural land mentioned in the plaint. In the said suit, upon notice petitioners have filed power of attorney and the matter was adjourned to 18.01.2025, on which date they sought time to file written statement. The matter was adjourned to 24.02.2025 for filing of written statement. However, as the Presiding Officer was to go on leave, the matter was taken up on 21.02.2025, instead of 24.02.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 21.03.2025 Learned counsel fairly conceded that despite the numerous opportunities, the petitioners have failed to file the written statement, but they never ha any intention not to file the written statement. He further submits that if the - The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal, was struck off the plaintiffs preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the agricultural land mentioned in the plaint. In the said suit, upon notice power of attorney and the matter was adjourned to 18.01.2025, on which date they sought time to file written statement. The matter was adjourned to 24.02.2025 for filing of written statement. r was taken up on 21.02.2025, instead of 24.02.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 21.03.2025. Learned counsel fairly conceded that despite the numerous opportunities, the petitioners have failed to file the written statement, but they never had any intention not to file the written statement. He further submits that if the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5998-2025 (O&M) defendants-petitioners be statement and they are costs. 3. I ha record of the case in hand. 4. The defence of the defendant struck-off on the ground that not paid. 5. 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, t directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the Courts to condone delay. 6. In view of above and in view of the settled law that the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, in nature and not mandatory, would be adequately met if one opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners for filing their written statement on 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 7. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.04.2025 effective opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners to file their written (O&M) petitioners be given one opportunity, they are willing to compensate the plaintiff 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 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 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. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned 11.04.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners to file their written -2- given one opportunity, they would file the written willing to compensate the plaintiff-respondent by ways of ve heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the petitioners in the present case has been the written statement was not filed and the cost was 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 the timeline for filing of written statement and laid down that in a non-commercial he 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 would be adequately met if one opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners 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 to and is in aid of justice. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners to file their written - would file the written respondent by ways of ve heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the in the present case has been and the cost was Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) had also examined commercial he 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 would be adequately met if one opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners 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 Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners to file their written TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5998-2025 (O&M) statement on or before the date fixed before the learned trial Court payment of Rs.8 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 matt 8. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 01, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) statement on or before the date fixed before the learned trial Court 8,000/- as costs to be paid to the plaintiff 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 application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- statement on or before the date fixed before the learned trial Court subject to e paid to the plaintiffs-respondents. 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 er without this order having any bearing on trial. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - subject to . 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 er without this order having any bearing on trial. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document