CR-6265-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Satish Kumar and Others Krishan Lal and Others CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Nikhil Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 Division), Sonepat was struck off and they have b 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the respondent No.1 under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 29.05.2023, petitioners Learned counsel would further contend that from the very first date of issuing notice to the defendants to the date now fixed before the learn case is pending for service of defendant No.19 as the plaintiff is not supplying his correct/complete address. However, he opportunities, the petitioners statement, but they never had any intention not to file the written statement. He further submits that if the petitioners (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : Satish Kumar and Others VERSUS Krishan Lal and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Nikhil Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned 07.05.2025 passed by the learned Sonepat, whereby the defence of the petitioner and they have been precluded from filing the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent No.1-plaintiff preferred a suit for under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. , petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 had put in appearance on 12.07.2023. Learned counsel would further contend that from the very first date of issuing notice to the defendants to the date now fixed before the learn case is pending for service of defendant No.19 as the plaintiff is not supplying his correct/complete address. However, he fairly conceded that despite the numerous opportunities, the petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 statement, but they never had any intention not to file the written statement. He further submits that if the petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6265-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 09.09.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Nikhil Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior whereby the defence of the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 een precluded from filing the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 would plaintiff preferred a suit for permanent injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In the said suit, upon notice on /defendants No.1 to 3 had put in appearance on 12.07.2023. Learned counsel would further contend that from the very first date of issuing notice to the defendants to the date now fixed before the learned trial Court, the case is pending for service of defendant No.19 as the plaintiff is not supplying his fairly conceded that despite the numerous /defendants No.1 to 3 have failed to file the written statement, but they never had any intention not to file the written statement. He /defendants No.1 to 3 be given one - The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned Senior /defendant Nos.1 to 3 would permanent injunction n the said suit, upon notice on /defendants No.1 to 3 had put in appearance on 12.07.2023. Learned counsel would further contend that from the very first date of issuing ed trial Court, the case is pending for service of defendant No.19 as the plaintiff is not supplying his fairly conceded that despite the numerous the written statement, but they never had any intention not to file the written statement. He given one TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6265-2025 (O&M) opportunity, they 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, contention of learned counsel for t allowed in the interest of justice the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the (O&M) they would file the written statement and the respondent No.1-plaintiff 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 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 d 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 law laid down above and keeping in view the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, in the interest of justice. The impugned order dated the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the -2- would file the written statement and they are willing to 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 d 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 law laid down above and keeping in view the he petitioners, the present revision petition is . The impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and one effective opportunity is granted to the - willing to I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the in the present case has been written statement Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) ad 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 d 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 law laid down above and keeping in view the the present revision petition is 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-6265-2025 (O&M) petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 fixed before the learned trial Court paid jointly by the petitioners Court. It is made clear that faili 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. 8. The revi 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 09, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) /defendants No.1 to 3 to file their written statement on or before the date fixed before the learned trial Court subject to payment of Rs. jointly by the petitioners to respondent No.1 . 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 allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- their written statement on or before the date subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs to be No.1 – plaintiff before the learned trial ng 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 in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - their written statement on or before the date as costs to be before the learned trial ng 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 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document