Dismissed¶28

Ramkishan v. Om Parkash and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Apr 2026CR/2895/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition dismissed - defence of defendant No. 2 struck off for non-filing of written statement - Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, order dated 06.07.2022 upheld - suit instituted 13.08.2020 - default of nearly two years - plea of communication gap and negligence of counsel rejected - delay not due to exceptional circumstances - courts should not aid lethargic litigants - one further opportunity denied - petition meritless.

What did the court decide?

None; the petitioner's request for one further opportunity to file the written statement was refused and the petition was dismissed as meritless. ¶28

Ramkishan Vs Om Parkash and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petitioner's request for one further opportunity to file the written statement was refused and the petition was dismissed as meritless.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the written statement by defendant No. 2/petitioner was excusable and whether one further opportunity should be granted to him to file the written statement, i.e., whether the trial court's order dated 06.07.2022 striking off his defence should be set aside.

¶15

Court's answer

The court found that defendant No. 2/petitioner had been lethargic in defending the suit and made no efforts to file his written statement within the stipulated period.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

When a defendant fails to file the written statement within the stipulated period and his defence is consequently struck off due to lethargy or wilful negligence, the courts should not come to the aid of such lethargic litigants.

¶23

Key takeaways

The petitioner failed to show that the delay in filing the written statement was due to exceptional circumstances rather than mere negligence; accordingly, no ground was made out to set aside the trial court's order dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-1).ratio¶23
The learned Trial Court acted correctly in striking off the defence, as the petitioner had failed to file the written statement for a period of nearly two years.ratio¶23
No force was found in the petitioner's contention (delay said to be unintentional, due to communication gap and counsel's negligence), and the revision petition was held liable to be dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision petition challenging the order dated 06.07.2022 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, whereby the defence of defendant No. 2/petitioner was struck off for failure to file the written statement - DISMISSED. Suit instituted 13.08.2020; defendant No. 2 appeared through counsel but filed no written statement for nearly two years despite the last opportunity. Held: where a defence is struck off due to lethargy or wilful negligence, courts should not come to the aid of such lethargic litigants; the petitioner showed no exceptional circumstances behind the delay, pleading only a communication gap and his counsel's negligence; the trial court rightly struck off the defence and no ground existed to set aside its order.

��

�� � �

�� 

��

�� !"#"�$%��&�'&��

��()�*��

��&&&&��"�"�$�+

,�+#-#�

�(��)���� �&&&��#.�$ �$�#

¶10

��(% ��/�0��(�&�����,��*��

¶11

��

¶12

���,����&��&1�+�23

¶13

�� This revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, vide which the defence of defendant No. 2/petitioner has been struck off on account of his failure to file the written statement.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material placed on the file.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay in filing the written statement was not intentional and was rather due to a communication gap and negligence on the part of the counsel engaged by the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner was not informed about the proceedings or the requirement to file the written statement and he came to know about the impugned order recently. Learned counsel next contended that one opportunity be granted to file the written statement in the interest of justice and that the petitioner is ready and willing to contest the suit on merits.

¶16

However, I do not find any force in the contention raised by learned

¶17

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.04.07 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶18

��

¶19

�� � �

¶20

counsel for the petitioner and the petition in hand is liable to be dismissed for the reasons discussed hereinafter.

¶21

Before proceeding further, the impugned order is reproduced as under:—

¶22

“Today the case was fixed for filing written statement. Previous cost paid. Written statement filed by the defendant No.1. Copy given. Written statements on behalf of defendants No. 2 and 3 not filed despite availing last and final opportunity. Hence defence of defendants No. 2 and 3 are hereby struck off. Now to come upon 16.01.2023 for evidence of the plaintiff.”

¶23

6. A perusal of the aforesaid order as well as the record placed on file shows that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent on 13.08.2020. Defendant No. 2/petitioner appeared through counsel but failed to file the written statement up to 06.07.2022, when the defence was struck off on account of failure to file the written statement. The aforesaid order, thus, shows that the defendant No. 2/petitioner has been lethargic while defending the suit and did not make any efforts to file his written statement within the stipulated period. It is well settled that when a defendant fails to file the written statement within the stipulated period and consequently, the defence is struck off due to lethargy or wilful negligence, the courts should not come to the aid of such lethargic litigants. The petitioner has not been able to show that the delay in filing the written statement was due to “exceptional circumstances” rather than mere negligence and as such, no ground to set aside the well-reasoned order dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) is made out. The learned Trial Court has rightly struck off the defence as the petitioner failed to file the written statement for a period of nearly two years. �� !��"�� #�� $��!��#��%�$��

¶24

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.04.07 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶25

��

¶26

�� � �

¶27

�� #��&�� &��#��&��&�� &��

¶28

"� Resultantly, the petition in hand is ordered to be dismissed being

¶29

meritless.