IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 189 CR-5365-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Nitya Mittal ...Petitioner Versus Mahesh Mittal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Ms. Ankita Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral) 1. The prayer made in the present revision petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 06.07.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, whereby an adjournment has been granted to the defendants to file reply. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the suit for separate possession by way of partition of the suit property was instituted on 18.08.2025 along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The trial Court issued notice to the defendants, who are adopting dilatory tactics and are wanting to delay the trial. The defendants put in appearance on 05.09.2025 and instead of filing written statement or reply to the injunction application, filed an application under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of the plaint. After due contest, the said application was dismissed vide SUMIT KUMAR 2026.07.23 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-5365-2026 -2- order dated 01.05.2026 (Annexure P-13). Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for filing reply to the injunction application as well as written statement. On the adjourned date, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC for striking off the defence of the defendants for non-filing of the written statement within the time stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. 3. Notice of the said application was given and the matter was deferred for filing reply to the said application as well as written statement. The matter is stated to be now pending for 23.07.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants have time and again been seeking adjournments, which is causing prejudice to the petitioner. Further, the defendants were duly served and had put in appearance on 05.09.2025, and since then, have evaded filing written statement or reply to the injunction application. Despite the aforesaid, the grant of adjournments at the asking, for filing written statement and reply to the application, has espoused their objective to delay the trial. 5. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be satisfied, at this stage, in case a direction is issued to the trial Court to consider and decide the application for striking off the defence, expeditiously, and in a time bound manner. 6. The limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner seems to be reasonable, keeping in view the fact that the suit was filed in August SUMIT KUMAR 2026.07.23 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-5365-2026 -3- 2025 and despite the lapse of nearly one year, is still at the stage of filing of written statement. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the limited prayer made, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice in case the application seeking striking off defence of the defendants for non-filing of the written statement is considered and disposed of at an early date. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a request to the learned trial Court to decide the aforesaid application dated 18.05.2026 (Annexure P-14), expeditiously, and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date when a copy of this order is brought to the notice of the Court concerned. 9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (VIKAS SURI) July 22, 2026 JUDGE sumit.k Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether Reportable : Yes / No SUMIT KUMAR 2026.07.23 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment