Disposed¶20

Umed v. Tarawati Alias Tara Devi and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2025CR/4274/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; CR-4274-2025; decided 15.07.2025 by Deepak Gupta, J. (oral); Article 226 Constitution of India; defence struck off; ex parte proceedings set aside; written statement; last opportunity; defendant No.12; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurugram; civil suit No.CS/254/2020; partition of property in dispute; cost ₹20,000/-; order passed without notice; contesting respondent at liberty to approach the Court; advocate Vikrant Rana for petitioner; respondents Tarawa @ Tara Devi and Others.

What did the court decide?

One opportunity to the petitioner-defendant No.12 to file his written statement, subject to payment of ₹20,000/- as cost plus the cost earlier imposed by the trial Court; the order will have no effect if the cost is not paid. ¶20

Umed Vs Tarawati Alias Tara Devi and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-defendant No.12, whose defence was struck off for failure to file the written statement, should be granted one further opportunity to file his written statement.

¶13

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to provide one opportunity to the petitioner-defendant No.12 to file his written statement, subject to cost of Rs. 20,000/- (₹20,000/-).

¶20

Ratio / Principle

In addition, the petitioner shall also pay the cost earlier imposed by the trial Court; if the cost as per this order is not paid, the order will have no effect.

¶20

Key takeaways

Since the order was passed without issuing notice to the contesting respondent, he will be at liberty to approach this Court in case he feels aggrieved.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (CR-4274-2025, decided 15.07.2025, Deepak Gupta, J.) against order dated 16.07.2024 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram in CS/254/2020 striking off the defence of the petitioner, who was defendant No.12, for non-filing of written statement. The petitioner had been proceeded ex parte on 31.01.2020; his application to set aside the ex parte proceedings was allowed on 19.10.2023 with last opportunity to file the written statement, which was nonetheless not filed. HELD: petition disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to provide one opportunity to the petitioner-defendant No.12 to file his written statement subject to ₹20,000/- as cost; the petitioner was also to pay the cost earlier imposed by the trial Court, and in case the cost as per this order was not paid, the order would have no effect. Since the order was passed without notice to the contesting respondent, he was left at liberty to approach the High Court if aggrieved.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

********

¶3

121

¶4

CR-4274-2025 Date of Decision.:15.07.2025

Umed

Pe��oner

Vs.

Tarawa� @ Tara Devi and Others Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. Vikrant Rana, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶11

¶12

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

By way of this pe��on filed under Ar�cle 226 of Cons�tu�on of India, pe��oner assails order dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram in civil suit No.CS/254/2020, whereby his defence was struck off.

¶14

Pe��oner was defendant No.12 in the suit before the trial Court. He was proceeded ex parte on 31.01.2020. His applica�on for se�ng aside ex parte proceedings was allowed on 19.10.2023 and ma�er was adjourned for filing the wri�en statement with last opportunity. However on the subsequent date wri�en statement was not filed and ul�mately vide the impugned order dated 16.07.2024, the defence was struck off.

¶15

Learned counsel submits that a�er 19.10.2023, ma�er was adjourned to 24.01.2024 and on that date subs�tu�on of the plain�ff was allowed but wri�en statement was not filed. Learned counsel further submits

¶16

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.15 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-4274-2025

¶18

-2-

¶19

that only one opportunity be provided to the pe��oner- defendant No.12 so as to file the wri�en statement, otherwise his rights will be affected as it is a case of par��on of the property in dispute.

¶20

A�er hearing learned counsel for the pe��oner and going through the paper-book, the present pe��on is hereby disposed of with a direc�on to the trial Court to provide one opportunity to the pe��onerdefendant No.12 to file his wri�en statement subject to ₹20,000/- as cost. In addi�on to this, pe��oner shall also pay the cost which was earlier imposed by the trial Court. It is made clear that in case, cost as per this order is not paid, this order will have no effect.

¶21

Since this order has been passed without issuing any no�ce to the contes�ng respondent, therefore, he will be at liberty to approach this Court, in case he feels aggrieved.

¶22

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶23

July 15, 2025

¶24

Nee�ka Tuteja

¶25

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶26

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.15 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Umed v. Tarawati Alias Tara Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umed v. Tarawati Alias Tara Devi and Others

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

Jagdish Vs Gram Panchayat and Another

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harish Sharma Vs Azad Singh and Another

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Malkit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurnam Singh Vs Surjit Singh and Others