Ramesh Alias Ramesh Kumar Vs Satish — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramesh Alias Ramesh Kumar Vs Satish — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

One last opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement, subject to depositing Rs.10,000/- costs to the respondent-plaintiff by Demand Draft prior to fixation of date, depositing Rs.1,000/- with the DLSA, filing permitted on the next date fixed upon compliance, with no further opportunity and automatic revival of the order striking off the defence upon any default; respondent at liberty to approach this Court as the order was passed without notice.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 10.07.2025 striking off the petitioner-defendant's defence for failure to file the written statement suffers from illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference under the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction. +1 more

Court's answer

The learned trial Court acted well within its jurisdiction and in consonance with law in passing the impugned order; the order striking off the defence does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference as a matter of right.

Ratio / Principle

Striking off of defence is a drastic measure and should ordinarily be resorted to as a last option; courts are expected to balance procedural discipline with adjudication of disputes on merits, and denial of an opportunity to file a written statement should not result in irreparable prejudice where the default can be compensated by realistic costs without serious prejudice to the opposite party.

Key takeaways

While upholding the correctness of the impugned order in principle, the Court granted the petitioner one last opportunity to file his written statement, on stringent terms, in the interest of substantial justice despite his laxity.ratio¶19
Condition imposed: the petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed by this Court, payable to the respondent-plaintiff by way of Demand Draft prior to fixation of a date by the trial Court for filing of the written statement.ratio¶23
Additional condition: the petitioner shall also deposit the cost of Rs.1,000/-, as earlier imposed by the trial Court, with the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J.), CR-9464-2025, decided 23.12.2025: The petitioner, defendant in Civil Suit No. CS-821-2024 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, challenged under the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction the order dated 10.07.2025 striking off his defence for failure to file the written statement despite repeated opportunities and non-compliance with the 22.05.2025 last-opportunity order carrying costs of Rs.1,000/- payable to the DLSA. The Court held that the trial Court acted within its jurisdiction and in consonance with law, the impugned order suffering from no illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference as a matter of right; however, observing that striking off of defence is a drastic measure to be ordinarily resorted to as a last option and that denial of an opportunity to file a written statement should not cause irreparable prejudice where the default can be compensated by realistic costs, the Court granted one final opportunity on stringent terms: deposit of Rs.10,000/- costs to the respondent-plaintiff by Demand Draft prior to fixation of date, deposit of Rs.1,000/- with the DLSA, permission to file the written statement on the next date fixed upon compliance, no further opportunity, and automatic revival of the strike-off order upon any default. As the order was passed without notice, the respondent was left at liberty to approach the Court if aggrieved. Petition disposed of accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

********

110

CR-9464-2025 Date of Decision:23.12.2025

Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar &..Pe//oner Vs. Sa/sh .&.Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:Mr. Lalit Kumar Narang, Advocate for the pe��oner.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Pe��oner herein is the defendant in Civil Suit No. CS-821-2024 �tled <Sa�sh v. Ramesh= , pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri. He has approached this Court under its supervisory jurisdic�on challenging the order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby his defence has been struck oû for failure to üle the wri6en statement.

A perusal of the record reveals that the pe��oner-defendant entered appearance before the trial Court on 07.11.2024. Therea8er, despite grant of repeated opportuni�es, he failed to üle his wri6en statement within the statutory as well as the extended period. Ul�mately, on 22.05.2025, the learned trial Court granted one last opportunity to the pe��oner to üle the wri6en statement, subject to payment of costs of ¹1,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA). However, on the adjourned date, i.e. 10.07.2025, the pe��oner neither paid the cost so imposed nor üled the wri6en statement. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court proceeded to strike oû the defence of the pe��oner.

Learned counsel for the pe��oner submits that the default occurred on account of a communica�on gap between the pe��oner and NEETIKA TUTEJA his counsel, owing to which the pe��oner could not remain present before 2025.12.23 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-9464-2025

-2-

the trial Court either to deposit the cost or to üle the wri6en statement. It is urged that the pe��oner be granted one more opportunity to üle the wri6en statement and that he undertakes to comply with the order regarding payment of costs, contending that striking oû of defence entails serious civil consequences and aûects valuable rights of the pe��oner.

There is no quarrel with the proposi�on that the conduct of the pe��oner, as borne out from the record, does not inspire conüdence. The learned trial Court has acted well within its jurisdic�on and in consonance with law while passing the impugned order, par�cularly in view of the repeated defaults and non-compliance even with the condi�on imposed while gran�ng the last opportunity. Thus, the impugned order does not suûer from any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity warran�ng interference as a ma6er of right.

At the same �me, it is equally well se6led that striking oû of defence is a dras�c measure and should ordinarily be resorted to as a last op�on. Courts are expected to strike a balance between procedural discipline and the overarching objec�ve of adjudica�ng disputes on merits. Denial of an opportunity to üle a wri6en statement, though jus�üed in law in appropriate cases, should not result in irreparable prejudice where the default can be compensated by imposi�on of realis�c costs and no serious prejudice is caused to the opposite party.

In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that, notwithstanding the pe��oner9s laxity, one ünal opportunity can be granted to him in the interest of substan�al jus�ce, albeit on stringent terms, so as to compensate the respondent and to ensure that the pe��oner does not take the process of the Court lightly.

Accordingly, while upholding the correctness of the impugned order in principle, this Court grants the pe��oner one last opportunity to üle his wri6en statement, subject to the following condi�ons:

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.23 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-9464-2025

-3-

The pe��oner shall deposit costs of ¹10,000/-, imposed by this Court, to be paid to the respondent-plain�û by way of Demand Dra8 prior to üxa�on of a date by the trial Court for üling of the wri6en statement;

In addi�on thereto, the pe��oner shall also deposit the cost of ¹1,000/-, as earlier imposed by the trial Court, with the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA);

Upon compliance with the above condi�ons, the learned trial Court shall permit the pe��oner to üle his wri6en statement on the next date üxed and proceed further in accordance with law;

It is clariüed that no further opportunity shall be granted to the pe��oner and any default in compliance shall automa�cally revive the order striking oû the defence.

The pe��on is disposed of accordingly.

Since this order has been passed without issuing no�ce to the respondent, in order to avoid delay in the proceedings, it is clariüed that the respondent shall be at liberty to approach this Court, if he feels aggrieved by this order.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

December 23, 2025

Nee�ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.23 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document