CR-6277-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Malkit Singh Balkar Singh and Others CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Amandeep Sharma Mr. Gurjinder Singh, Advocate MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 whereby the defence of the petitioner been precluded from filing the written statement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent No.1 deed dated 28.05.2024 is null a injunction restraining the defendants from alienating of the suit property notice of the suit was issued to the respondents, but petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court and h dated 24.03.2025. Thereafter, he filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, which was allowed on 29.04.2025 and the case was adjourned written statements. Learned counsel further contends t regarding the date of hearing, to file the written statement. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Gurjinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( whereby the defence of the petitioner/defendant No.1 been precluded from filing the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant the respondent No.1-plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 28.05.2024 is null and void and result of fraud or suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating of the suit property notice of the suit was issued to the respondents, but petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court and he was proceeded ex dated 24.03.2025. Thereafter, he filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, which was allowed on 29.04.2025 and the case was adjourned written statements. Learned counsel further contends t regarding the date of hearing, on the part of the petitioner/defendant No.1, he failed to file the written statement. He further submits that if the petitioner -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6277-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 09.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU and for the petitioner. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala /defendant No.1 was struck off and they have been precluded from filing the written statement. /defendant No.1 would contend that for declaration to the effect that sale nd void and result of fraud or suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating of the suit property. The notice of the suit was issued to the respondents, but petitioner-defendant No.1 e was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.03.2025. Thereafter, he filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, which was allowed on 29.04.2025 and the case was adjourned for filing of written statements. Learned counsel further contends that due to bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner/defendant No.1, he failed He further submits that if the petitioner/defendant - The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned Batala, and they have would contend that for declaration to the effect that sale nd void and result of fraud or suit for permanent The defendant No.1 parte vide order dated 24.03.2025. Thereafter, he filed an application for setting aside the ex parte for filing of hat due to bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner/defendant No.1, he failed /defendant TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6277-2025 (O&M) No.1 be given one opportunity, willing to compensate the respondent 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 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 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 contentions of learned counsel is allowed in the interest of justice by the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the (O&M) given one opportunity, they would file the written willing to compensate the respondent No.1-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 despite numerous opportunities 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, in view of the law laid down above and keeping in view the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, in the interest of justice. The impugned order dated by the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the -2- would file the written statement and he is plaintiff by ways of costs. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the petitioners in the present case has been despite numerous opportunities written statement 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 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. in view of the law laid down above and keeping in view for the petitioners, the present revision petition . The impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the - he is I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the t case has been written statement 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 in view of the law laid down above and keeping in view the present revision petition passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6277-2025 (O&M) petitioner/defendant before the learned trial Court to respondent No.1 file the written statement in terms 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 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 09, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) /defendant No.1 to file written statement on or before the date fixed before the learned trial Court subject to payment of Rs. No.1 – plaintiff before the trial Court 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 allowed in the aforesaid Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- written statement on or before the date fixed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be paid before the trial Court. It is made clear that failing to 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. in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - written statement on or before the date fixed as costs to be paid . It is made clear that failing to of this order, the petitioners would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document