1 2026:HHC:34149 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 85 of 2026 Decided on: 12.8.2026 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & anr. … Petitioners Versus Jaimal Singh …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Jaidev Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 20.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Una, H.P.(hereafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 93 of 2018, titled as ‘Jaimal Singh vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., whereby, the learned trial Court has struck off the defence of the petitioner. 2 2026:HHC:34149 2. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 3. Plaintiff Jaimal Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith 12% interest, against the defendants, on the ground that he had availed the loan facility of Rs. 2,00,000/-in the year 2009 from defendant No. 2. Plaintiff, thereafter, returned the loan alongwith interest, against vehicle No. HR 38-H-3065 and last installment was paid on 28.3.2011, against the account No. 257141. 4. The plaintiff has again taken loan for the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in the year 2011, against the aforesaid vehicle and deposited a loan amount alongwith interest, on 25.10.2013. Thereafter, the plaintiff intended to sell the said vehicle and requested the defendant to issue No Objection Certificate, as entry with regard to loan, was there in the Registration Certificate. However, the said matter was prolonged by the defendant. The plaintiff served a legal notice upon defendant No. 2 on 23.11.2013. Thereafter, the plaintiff had also adopted a 3 2026:HHC:34149 legal recourse, as provided under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Later on, the said complaint was withdrawn on 4.11.2014. Thereafter, the matter was again agitated before the permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services Ludhiana). The matter was decided on 18.9.2017, in which, directions were issued to the defendants to issue No Objection Certificate, within 15 days of the receipt of the award. 5. According to the plaintiff, after direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, No Objection Certificate has not been issued. All these facts have been highlighted to demonstrate that the defendants have unnecessarily harassed the plaintiff. As such, he has sought recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 6. In the said suit, when, the notices were issued, then, defendant No. 1, despite service of notice, has not opted to put appearance, as such, it was proceeded against ex-parte, whereas, defendant No. 2 put appearance, through counsel. 7. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 moved an application under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration 4 2026:HHC:34149 and Conciliation Act, which was decided on 23.12.2022. On that date, the said application was dismissed. Thereafter, adjournment was sought for filing the written statement, upon which, the learned trial Court has granted sufficient opportunity to defendant No. 2 to file written statement, on 4.5.2023. Thereafter, again exceptional last opportunity was granted to file written statement, on 1.8.2023. After availing various opportunities, when, defendant No. 2 could not file written statement, then, on 20.11.2025, defence of defendant No. 2, was ordered to be struck off. 8. The said order dated 20.11.2025 has been challenged before this Court, by way of the present petition. 9. As per submissions made by learned counsel for defendant No. 2, appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was preferred against the order dated 23.12.2022, before the learned District Judge, Una, H.P., which was dismissed, on 30.8.2025. 5 2026:HHC:34149 10. Reason for non-filing the written statement has been stated to be due to the fact that the record was requisitioned by the learned District Jude, Una, H.P. 11. The matter should be decided on merit, not on the basis of default committed by one party, for filing the written statement. Considering the fact that defendant No. 2 was negligent in pursuing the matter, this Court is of the view that at least one opportunity should be granted to defendant No. 2 to file written statement, subject to payment of costs. 12. Considering the fact that the lis is pending before the learned trial Court from the year 2018, ends of justice would be met, if order dated 20.11.2025, is set aside, by affording one opportunity to defendant No. 2 to file written statement, however, subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/-. Ordered accordingly. 13. In view of above, the present petition is allowed, subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff and order dated 20.11.2025 is set aside. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 6 2026:HHC:34149 14. Parties to the lis are directed to appear before the learned trial Court, on 26.8.2026. It is clarified that only one opportunity shall be granted to defendant No. 2 to file the written statement. 15. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. 16. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 12.8.2026 Judge Kalpana