Partly allowed¶19

Piyush v. Jagdish Malhotra

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Mar 2025CR/1414/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; CR-1414-2025; decided 11.03.2025 by Vikas Bahl, J.; Article 227 Constitution of India revision; defence struck off; written statement; last opportunity; Rs.50,000 cost deposit; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurugram; Civil Suit No.CS/1288/2023; partly allowed; deemed dismissal on default; no notice to respondent; recall liberty.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition partly allowed; impugned order dated 03.01.2024 set aside to the extent the petitioner's defence was struck off; one last opportunity to file written statement within three weeks by application before the trial Court, conditional on deposit of Rs.50,000/- within three weeks before the trial Court, to be released to the respondent/plaintiff; default entails deemed dismissal of the revision petition. ¶19

Piyush Vs Jagdish Malhotra — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose defence was struck off and who delayed in challenging the order, should be granted an opportunity to file his written statement on payment of costs.

¶15

Court's answer

The revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 03.01.2024 is set aside to the extent that the defence of the petitioner had been struck off.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is granted one last opportunity to file his written statement within three weeks by filing an application before the trial Court.

¶19

Key takeaways

The opportunity is conditional on the petitioner depositing Rs.50,000/- within three weeks before the trial Court, and on deposit the amount would be released to the respondent/plaintiff.ratio¶19
If the amount is not deposited or the written statement is not filed within the stipulated period, the revision petition would stand deemed dismissed.ratio¶20
No notice is issued to the respondent to avoid further delay and expense; however, the respondent is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order if any statement made before the Court is found false or incorrect.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 03.01.2024 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram in Civil Suit No.CS/1288/2023 (Sh. Jagdish Malhotra Vs. Sh. Piyush) whereby the defence of the petitioner, the sole defendant, was struck off. Noting that only the examination-in-chief of one PW had been recorded, the case stood fixed for 22.05.2025, and there was delay in challenging the impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the revision, set aside the strike-off, and granted one last opportunity to file the written statement within three weeks by application before the trial Court, conditional on deposit of Rs.50,000/- within three weeks, to be released to the respondent/plaintiff. Failure to deposit or file within time would result in deemed dismissal of the revision petition. No notice was issued to the respondent, with liberty reserved to seek recall of the order if any statement made before the Court were found false or incorrect.

¶1

CR-1414-2025 [1]

¶2

119

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR-1414-2025 Date of decision: 11.03.2025

Piyush

...Petitioner

Versus

Jagdish Malhotra

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

¶11

Present: Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate and Mr. J.S. Sohal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram in Civil Suit No.CS/1288/2023 titled as “Sh. Jagdish Malhotra Vs. Sh. Piyush” whereby the defence of the petitioner has been struck off.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is sole defendant and in case, no opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file his written statement then he would suffer irreparable loss. It is submitted that for the inconvenience caused to respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner is ready to pay heavy costs as there is delay in challenging the impugned order dated 03.01.2024. It is further submitted that only examination-in-chief of one PW has been recorded and no other evidence of

¶16

PAWAN KUMAR 2025.03.11 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CR-1414-2025 [2]

¶18

the plaintiff has been recorded and the case is now fixed for 22.05.2025.

¶19

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that one last opportunity on payment of costs should be granted to the petitioner to file his written statement. Accordingly, the present revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 03.01.2024 to the extent that the defence of the petitioner has been struck off, is set aside and the petitioner is granted one last opportunity to file his written statement within a period of three weeks from today by filing an application before the trial Court. Same would be subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of three weeks from today before the trial Court. On deposit of the said amount, the same would be released by the trial Court to the respondent/plaintiff.

¶20

It is made clear that in case the said amount is not deposited or written statement is not filed within the aforesaid period, then the present revision petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

¶21

In the present case, no notice is being issued to the respondent as issuance of notice to him would further delay the proceedings and would also entail the expenses for respondent to defend the present revision petition. However, it would be open to respondent to move an application for recalling of the present order in case any of the statement made before this Court is found to be false/incorrect.

¶22

11.03.2025

¶23

Pawan

¶24

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE

¶25

Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶26

PAWAN KUMAR 2025.03.11 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Piyush v. Jagdish Malhotra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush v. Jagdish Malhotra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Pal Vs N.F.L. Employees

State of Haryana Vs Manohar Lal Sharma

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Neelam Vs Rajbir & Ors.

Jagchanan Singh Since Deceased through His Lrs Vs Jarnail Singh and Others

Santosh Rani Vs Ved Prakash and Others