CR-6324-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Shriram Finance Limited and Another Charanjiv Singh CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 Ferozepur, whereby the defence of the petitioner ground that statutory period been passed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner respondent-plaintiff preferred a suit i.e. Show Cause Notice dated dated 04.10.2024 & Final Enquiry dated 21.12.2024 are illegal and null and void. It is further contended that upon notice petitioners appeared before the trial Court on 08.04.2025. opportunities, the petitioners but they never had any intention not to file the written statement. He further submits that the matter is now fixed for plaintiff’s evidence any written statement, the petitioners/defendants will be precluded from putting forth their defence. It is further contended that (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : Shriram Finance Limited and Another VERSUS Charanjiv Singh CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned 17.07.2025 passed by the learned whereby the defence of the petitioner ground that statutory period of 90 days for filing written statement has already Learned counsel for the petitioners plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration to the effect that office orders i.e. Show Cause Notice dated 26.09.2024, charge dated 04.10.2024 & Final Enquiry dated 21.12.2024 are illegal and null and void. It is further contended that upon notice petitioners appeared before the trial Court on 08.04.2025. However, he fairly conced opportunities, the petitioners/defendants have failed to file the written statement, but they never had any intention not to file the written statement. He further the matter is now fixed for plaintiff’s evidence any written statement, the petitioners/defendants will be precluded from putting forth their defence. It is further contended that -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6324-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 10.09.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioners. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, whereby the defence of the petitioners/defendants was struck off on the of 90 days for filing written statement has already s/defendants would contend that for declaration to the effect that office orders 26.09.2024, charge-sheet cum suspension services dated 04.10.2024 & Final Enquiry dated 21.12.2024 are illegal and null and void. It is further contended that upon notice petitioners appeared before the trial Court fairly conceded that despite the numerous have failed to file the written statement, but they never had any intention not to file the written statement. He further the matter is now fixed for plaintiff’s evidence and in the absence of any written statement, the petitioners/defendants will be precluded from putting forth their defence. It is further contended that if the petitioners/defendants - The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned Civil Judge, Junior Division, on the of 90 days for filing written statement has already the for declaration to the effect that office orders sheet cum suspension services dated 04.10.2024 & Final Enquiry dated 21.12.2024 are illegal and null and void. It is further contended that upon notice petitioners appeared before the trial Court ed that despite the numerous have failed to file the written statement, but they never had any intention not to file the written statement. He further and in the absence of any written statement, the petitioners/defendants will be precluded from putting /defendants be TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6324-2025 (O&M) given one opportunity, 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 despite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the written statement was not filed 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR 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 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 dec 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 learne allowed in the interest of justice 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 statement and compensate the respondent-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 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 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 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 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 dec 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, 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 as. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the petitioners in the present case has been on the ground that 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 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 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 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. in view of law laid down above and keeping in view the d counsel for the petitioners, the present revision petition is . The impugned order dated 17.07.2025 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 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 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 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 ided on merits, 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-6324-2025 (O&M) petitioners/defendants before the learned trial Court by the petitioners 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 bea 8. The revision petition is 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 10, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) /defendants to file their written statement on or before the date fixed before the learned trial Court subject to payment of Rs. by the petitioners to respondent– plaintiff before the learned trial Court 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 bea 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- file their written statement on or before the date fixed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be paid before the learned trial Court. 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. in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - file their written statement on or before the date fixed as costs to be paid . 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 ring on trial. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document