Sodhi Vikram Singh Vs Tikka Sodhi Harkirat… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Sodhi Vikram Singh Vs Tikka Sodhi Harkirat… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order striking off the defence set aside; petitioner permitted to file written statement within two weeks before the trial Court, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- costs to the respondent before filing; default in either condition forfeits the right to file the written statement; pending applications disposed of; trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court was justified in striking off the defence of the petitioner in the given circumstances.

Court's answer

It is a settled proposition of law that rules of procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to stifle it.

Ratio / Principle

Although the trial Court was within its jurisdiction to impose costs and control its own proceedings, striking off the defence is a drastic step and ought to be resorted to sparingly, only when it is apparent that the conduct of the party is contumacious and intended to delay the proceedings (sentence continues in the immediately following passage).

Key takeaways

After setting aside of the ex parte proceedings only one effective opportunity was granted to file the written statement; the petitioner's explanation that he was out of country was not seriously disputed; it cannot be said he was deliberately prolonging the trial or abusing the process of the Court; the inconvenience to the respondent can be compensated adequately by imposition of costs; denying the petitioner an opportunity to contest the matter on merits would amount to condemning him unheard, contrary to the settled principle that justice should not only be done but also appear to have been done.ratio¶¶29
The impugned order dated 28.08.2025 striking off the defence of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside; the civil revision is allowed subject to the petitioner filing his written statement positively within two weeks and paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent before filing the written statement, failing either of which conditions the petitioner shall forfeit his right to file the written statement; the trial Court shall thereafter proceed expeditiously.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, CR-6585-2025 (O&M), decided 17.09.2025 (Mandeep Pannu, J.). The petitioner/defendant No.1, proceeded against ex parte on 19.05.2025, secured restoration of proceedings on 17.07.2025 on payment of costs of Rs.100/- (DLSA) and was given one further opportunity on 01.08.2025 (further costs Rs.500/-) to file his written statement; on his failure on 28.08.2025 the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur Sahib struck off his defence. Held: rules of procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to stifle it; striking off the defence is a drastic step to be resorted to sparingly, only where the party's conduct is contumacious and intended to delay; the petitioner's absence abroad was not seriously disputed, only one effective opportunity had been granted, and the inconvenience to the respondent could be adequately compensated by costs; denial of a chance to contest on merits would condemn him unheard. Revision allowed: written statement to be filed within two weeks, Rs.5,000/- costs payable to the respondent beforehand, default in either condition forfeiting the right to file the written statement; trial Court to proceed expeditiously. Filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

CR-6585-2025 (O&M)

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CR-6585-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 17.09.2025

Sodhi Vikram S ingh

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Tikka Sodhi Harkirat Singh and Others

....Responden t s

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: M r . Dilmrig Nayani and Mr. Yuvr a j Dhanajaya, Advocates for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

Pr e sent civil revision has been fil e d by the petitioner/defendant N o.1 under Article 2 2 7 of the Constitution of India fo r setting aside the impugned o r der dated 28.08.20 2 5 passed by the learned Civil J udge (Junior Division), Anan d pur Sahib, whereby the defence of the petitioner wa s struck off.

Brief facts

Th e brief facts necessary for disp o sal of the present revision are t hat on 19.05.2025, the present petitioner/defenda n t No.1 was proceeded agains t ex parte by the trial Court. Subsequently, the sa i d ex parte order was set aside on 17.07.2025 sub j ect to payment of costs of ₹10 0 /- to be deposited with the DL S A. The case was a d journed to 01.08.2025. On that date, learned trial Court grante d an opportunity to t h e petitioner to file the written statement, subject to further cost s of ₹500/-. Howev e r, on the next date of hearing, i. e . 28.08.2025, the written state m ent of the petitione r was not filed. Taking note of t h e fact that the costs imposed ea r lier were not paid and that even after setting aside the ex parte proceedings, the petitioner faile d to avail the opportunity, t h e learned trial Court passed the TRIPTI SAINIimpugned orde r striking off the defence of defe n dant No.1/petitioner. 2025.09.17 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-6585-2025 (O&M)

- 2 -

Le a rned counsel appearing for th e petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had n o intention to delay the proc e edings. Rather, the petitioner h ad remained out o f Country and could not arra n ge for filing of written state m ent within the short span of time granted after setti n g aside the ex parte proceeding s . It is contended th a t only one effective opportunit y was given to the petitioner to file written stateme n t and the consequence of stri k ing off the entire defence is h a rsh and disproporti o nate. It is further submitted tha t the petitioner is ready and wil l ing to file the writt e n statement without any furth e r delay and also undertakes to p ay all costs that m a y be imposed by this Court in o r der to compensate the respondent.

Findings

I h ave considered the submission s advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner a n d perused the record.

Th e facts are not much in dispu t e. Admittedly, the petitioner w as proceeded agai n st ex parte on 19.05.2025. T he said order was set aside on 17.07.2025 an d an opportunity was granted t o him to join the proceedings on payment of costs. Thereafter, on 01.08.2025, a nother opportunity was grante d to file the written statement subject to further co s ts. The petitioner failed to file the written statement on 28.08.2025, resulting in the impugned order whereby his defence was str u ck off.

Th e only question for considerati o n before this Court is whether the trial Court was justified in striking off the de f ence of the petitioner in the gi v en circumstances. I t is a settled proposition of law t hat rules of procedure are mea n t to advance the ca u se of justice and not to stifle it. A lthough the trial Court was wi t hin its jurisdiction to impose costs and control its o w n proceedings, yet striking of f the defence is a drastic step and ought to be res o rted to sparingly, only when it is

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-6585-2025 (O&M)

- 3 -

apparent that t h e conduct of the party is cont u macious and intended to delay the proceedings.

In the present case, after setting a side of the ex parte proceedi n gs, only one effect i ve opportunity was granted to the petitioner for filing the wri t ten statement. The explanation tendered by the pe t itioner that he was out of cou n try has not been se r iously disputed. It cannot, ther e fore, be said that the petitioner w as deliberately pr o longing the trial or abusing the process of the Court. T he inconvenience caused to the respondent ca n be compensated adequately by imposition of c o sts. Denying the petitioner an o pportunity to contest the matte r on merits would a m ount to condemning him unhe a rd, which is contrary to the set t led principle that justice should not only be done b u t also appear to have been done . Conclusion

Fo r the reasons recorded above, th e impugned order dated 28.08.2 0 25 passed by the l e arned Civil Judge (Junior Divi s ion), Anandpur Sahib, striking off the defence of t h e petitioner, cannot be sustain e d and is accordingly set aside. T he present civil r e vision is allowed, subject to the petitioner filing his wri t ten statement posit i vely within two weeks from t he date of passing of this or d er, before the trial C ourt and also subject to payme n t of costs of ₹5,000/- to be pai d to the respondent b efore filing of the written state m ent. In case of default in eithe r of the conditions, t he petitioner shall forfeit his ri g ht to file the written statement. T he trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the m atter in accordance with law a nd dispose of the s a me expeditiously.

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

September 17, 2 025 tripti Whether s peaking/non-speaking : Speaking TRIPTI SAINI2025.09.17 14:15 Whether reportable : Yes/No I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE