Disposed¶22

Narinder Singh and Another v. Rajinder Kumar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Mar 2026CR/2104/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 revision; permission to file replication declined; replication to written statement of defendant No.1; suit adjourned for consideration on stay application; costs deposited with District Legal Services Authority, Amritsar (Annexure P-8); proposed replication Annexure P-7; issues not framed; one opportunity granted; Surinder Kumar Singal v. Raj Kumar Singal 2021(3) RCR(Civil) 145; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar; Civil Suit No.3148 of 2023; Narinder Singh v. Rajinder Kumar; 106 CR-2104-2026 (O&M); decided 06.03.2026; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to file replication to the written statement of defendant No.1, restricted to a single opportunity; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶22

Narinder Singh and Another Vs Rajinder… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioners permitted to file replication to the written statement of defendant No.1, restricted to a single opportunity; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 15.01.2026 and 11.02.2026 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar — declining permission to file replication to the written statement of defendant No.1 and adjourning the suit for consideration on the stay application — were liable to be set aside in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The revision petition is disposed of and the petitioners are permitted to file the replication.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Surinder Kumar Singal v. Raj Kumar Singal, 2021(3) RCR(Civil) 145, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants by permitting the plaintiffs to file replication, since the suit is pending for arguments on the stay application, issues have not been framed, and the petitioners have already deposited the imposed costs with the District Legal Services Authority, Amritsar.

¶21

Key takeaways

Only one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners to file the replication.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Yashvir Singh Rathor, J., oral) — Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against orders dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) and 11.02.2026 (Annexure P-6) of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar in Civil Suit No.3148 of 2023, whereby the suit was adjourned for consideration on the stay application and permission to file replication to the written statement of defendant No.1 was declined. Applying Surinder Kumar Singal v. Raj Kumar Singal, 2021(3) RCR(Civil) 145 (replication can be taken on record even if issues are framed), and noting that in the present case issues had not been framed and the suit was pending for arguments on the stay application, the Court held that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, particularly as the petitioners had deposited the imposed costs with the District Legal Services Authority, Amritsar (Annexure P-8). Revision petition disposed of permitting the petitioners to file replication, confined to one opportunity; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

��

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

106 CR-2104-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 06.03.2026

¶5

NARINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶6

....PETITIONERS VERSUS

¶7

RAJINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

¶8

...RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. G.S. Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (ORAL)

¶14

This revision petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) and 11.02.2026 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar in Civil Suit No.3148 of 2023, vide which the case has been adjourned for consideration on stay application and permission to file replication to the written statement filed by defendant No.1 has not been allowed.

¶15

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondent.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/revisionists and have gone through the material on record.

¶17

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.03.08 05:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

��

¶19

��

¶20

After the written statement was filed by defendant No.1, suit was adjourned to 15.01.2026 for filing of replication and cost was also imposed. However, on 15.01.2026, cost was not paid and replication was also not filed and the case was adjourned to 11.02.2026 for consideration on stay application. It was further ordered that previous cost be paid on the said date and the case was adjourned to 11.02.2026 on which date also case has been adjourned to 06.03.2026 for consideration on stay application.

¶21

As per version of the petitioners/plaintiffs, they have deposited the costs with the District Legal Services Authority, Amritsar vide receipt Annexure P-8 and a prayer has been made that they be permitted to file replication, a copy of which has also been placed on file as Annexure P-7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 2021(3) RCR(Civil) 145 Surinder Kumar Singal Vs. Mr. Raj Kumar Singal and Another , has held that even if issues are framed, replication can be taken on record and at best, it would be a case of irregularity in procedure and the order vide which permission to file replication was declined was set aside. In the present case also, the suit is pending for arguments on stay application and even issues have not been framed as yet. Thus, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendants if the plaintiffs are permitted to file the replication, particularly when they have already deposited the costs with the District Legal Services Authority, Amritsar.

¶22