Finstem Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gurinder Singh

The present revision petition h as been filed for setting aside the impug n ed order dated 20.12.2025 (Anne x ure P-1) passed by the learned Additiona l Civil Judge (Senior Division), J a graon in Civil Suit No.597 of 2021 title d “Gurinder Singh vs. Finstem Inf r astructure Pvt. Ltd.” , whereby the defen c e of the defendant-petitioner was struck off; as well as the order dated 17. 0 1.2026 (Annexure P-6), where b y the application filed under Section 1 5 1 CPC for recalling/reviewing the aforesaid order was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petit i oner has inter alia submitted that the d efence of the petitioner has bee n erroneously struck off. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier file d an application under Order 9 Rule 7 C P C, which was allowed by the lear n ed trial Court vide order dated 22.04.202 5 on the basis of ‘No Objection’ given by learned counsel for the responde n t. Thereafter, at the joint request of the parties, the matter was referred t o the National Lok Adalat, as is evident from the zimni orders dated 12. 0 5.2025 and 11.08.2025 (at pages 34 and 35 of the paper book).

¶14

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.08 17.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

Civil Revision No.1612 of 2026 (O & M) 2

¶16

It has further been submitted t hat on 20.11.2025, the matter ought to h ave been listed for filing of writ t en statement by the petitioner. However, due to an inadvertent recording b y the learned trial Court, it was noted that “No PW is present” and the cas e was adjourned to 20.12.2025. Learned counsel submits that when this fa c t was brought to the notice of the learne d trial Court, instead of granting a n opportunity to file the written statement, the defence of the petitioner wa s struck off on the ground that sufficient t ime had already been granted.

¶17

It is argued that the impugne d orders have resulted in grave prejudice t o the petitioner and, if not set aside, would cause irreparable loss, as the pet i tioner would be deprived of an o p portunity to contest the suit on merits. At this stage, learned counsel submit s that one effective opportunity may be g r anted to the petitioner herein to fi l e the written statement subject to payme n t of some reasonable costs, as gr a ve injustice will be caused to him if he i s not permitted to do so.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel f o r the petitioner and perused the

¶19

record.

¶20

In the considered opinion of t h is Court, the circumstances, as noticed a b ove, indicate that the petitioner cannot be said to be wholly negligent i n pursuing the matter. The recor d reflects that the petitioner had already b e en allowed to join the proceedin g s pursuant to the order passed under Or d er 9 Rule 7 CPC, and thereafter t he matter was referred to Lok Adalat pr o ceedings at the joint request o f the parties. The sequence of events su g gests that the opportunity to f i le written statement was not availed of due to procedural irregularity rath e r than deliberate inaction.

¶21

It is a settled principle that p r ocedural rules are intended to advance t h e cause of justice and not to defe a t it. Denial of an opportunity to

¶22

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.08 17.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

Civil Revision No.1612 of 2026 (O & M) 3

¶24

file writte n statement, particularly in the f a cts of the present case, would result in s e rious prejudice to the petitioner a nd would impede adjudication on merits.

¶25

In view of the above, this Co u rt is of the considered opinion that one e f fective opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to file the writte n statement, subject to appropriate c osts.

¶26

Accordingly, the present petit i on is allowed . The impugned order dat e d 20.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) a n d the order dated 17.01.2026 (Annexur e P-6) are hereby set aside. The l e arned trial Court is directed to grant on e effective opportunity to the p etitioner to file the written statement, subject to payment of costs of R s .20,000/- to the respondent, to be paid o n or before the next date of hearin g before the learned trial Court, which is s t ated to be 10.04.2026.

¶27

Disposed of in the above terms.

¶28

Pending application(s), if any, s hall also stand disposed of.

¶29

April 07, 2 026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶30

Whether s p eaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether R e portable Yes / No

¶31

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.08 17.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Finstem Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Gurinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Finstem Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Gurinder Singh

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

Aslam Khan and Another Vs Farukhi and Others

Mohinder Singh Vs Komal Mittal, IAS

M/S Surinder Kumar Contractor Vs Amit Talwar, I.A.S. and Others

Gian Chand Vs Malkiat Singh and Another

Santosh Devi Vs Chander Shekhar Khare IAS and Another

Badal Singh Vs State Bank of Patiala Now State Bank of India