Varun Singla vs M/S Trot Trading Ltd.

CR CR-3547 CR CR 3547 3547-2026 3547 2026 2026 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CR CR-3547 CR CR 3547 3547-202 3547 202 2026 202 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M)
Reserved on Reserved on:25.09.2026 Reserved on Reserved on 25.09.2026 25.09.2026 25.09.2026
Pronounced on: Pronounced on: 30.10.2026 Pronounced on: Pronounced on: 30.10.2026 30.10.2026 30.10.2026
Uploaded on: Uploaded on: 02.11.2026 Uploaded on: Uploaded on:

Varun Singla
...… Petitioner
Versus

M/s. Trot Trading Ltd.
.......Respondent


CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sholab Arora, Advocate
for the respondent/caveator.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.

1. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present revision petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.04.2026
(Annexure P-1), whereby the trial Court has struck off the defence of the
petitioner and the written statement has been taken off the record.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a
commercial suit (Annexure P-2) on 09.05.2024 for recovery arising out of a
business transaction. The petitioner-defendant was proceeded against ex parte
on 04.01.2025 , as no one appeared on his behalf, despite service. On
17.03.2025, an application filed by petitioner-defendant for setting aside the ex
parte proceedings, was allowed by the trial Court subject to payment of cost of
Rs.500/-. On 01.04.2025, the petitioner paid the cost and sought time to file
written statement. On 15.04.2025, the petitioner-defendant filed an application
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CR CR-3547 CR CR 3547 3547-2026 3547 2026 2026 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M)
-2-
for production of the documents relied upon by the respondent-plaintiff. On
22.04.2025, the said application was allowed and the respondent-plaintiff was
directed to supply the documents sought. On 14.07.2025, the petitioner-
defendant filed written statement (Annexure P-3). Subsequently on 01.08.2025,
the respondent-plaintiff filed an application for striking of the defence of the
petitioner-defendant submitting that the written statement has not been filed
within 120 days. The said application was allowed by the trial Court, by
passing the impugned order dated 08.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) and the defence
of the petitioner was struck off. The defendant-petitioner is before this Court
aggrieved against the said impugned order passed by the trial Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
paper book.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant contends that the trial
Court could not sit in appeal against its own order. Once the trial Court has
accepted written statement on record, thereafter the said written statement
could not have been taken off the record. It is further contended that there is no
intentional delay on the part of the petitioner-defendant. The requisite
documents were supplied on 06.05.2025 and thereafter the written statement
was immediately filed.
5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
plaintiff contends that the petitioner-defendant was already in possession of all
the documents. The Commercial Court does not have the power to accept the
written statement filed beyond a period of 120 days. Cites the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in SCG CG CG Contracts CG Contracts Contracts (India Contracts India India) Pvt. Ltd. vs K India Pvt. Ltd. vs K Pvt. Ltd. vs KS Chamankar Pvt. Ltd. vs K Chamankar Chamankar Chamankar
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 12 SCC 210 and Desh Raj V/s. Balkishan (dead) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 12 SCC 210 and Desh Raj V/s. Balkishan (dead) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 12 SCC 210 and Desh Raj V/s. Balkishan (dead) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 12 SCC 210 and Desh Raj V/s. Balkishan (dead)
through proposed through proposed LR through proposed through proposed LR LR Ms. Rohini LR Ms. Rohini Ms. Rohini (2020 Ms. Rohini 2020 2020) ) ) ) 2 SCC 708 2020 2 SCC 708 2 SCC 708 2 SCC 708
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CR CR-3547 CR CR 3547 3547-2026 3547 2026 2026 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M)
-3-
6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition under the
provisions of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Commercial Courts Act’), which came into force on 23.10.2015;
brought amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred
to as ‘the CPC’) including the provisions of Order V Rule 1(1) CPC. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in SCG CG CG Contracts CG Contracts Contracts (India Contracts India India) Pvt. Ltd. India Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (supra) (supra) has held that in
view of the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the amended
provisions of CPC, ordinarily the written statement is to be filed within a
period of 30 days. However grace period of further 90 days is granted for the
reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court
deems fit. It is further held that beyond 120 days from the date of service of
summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file written statement and the
Court shall not allow written statement to be taken on record. As per the
proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 & 10 CPC, the Court has no further time to grant
this period of 120 days.
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in A.K. Ghosh And Company A.K. Ghosh And Company & Ors. A.K. Ghosh And Company A.K. Ghosh And Company & Ors. & Ors. vs & Ors. vs vs vs
Biman Bose Biman Bose & Ors., Biman Bose Biman Bose & Ors., & Ors., 2026 SCC & Ors., 2026 SCC 2026 SCC online 1321 2026 SCC online 1321 online 1321 online 1321 further held that mandatory time
frame prescribed by the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC even applies to the
filing of a written statement by the plaintiff to a counter-claim raised by the
defendant in a suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
9. However, in the present case, facts and circumstances are
distinguishable. The written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendant on
14.07.2025 and the same was accepted by the Court. Even the copy of the
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CR CR-3547 CR CR 3547 3547-2026 3547 2026 2026 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M)
-4-
same was also supplied to the respondent-plaintiff. The order dated 14.07.2025,
passed by the trial Court is reproduced as under:-
“Written statement filed by defendant. Copy supplied. On
request, now case stands adjourned to 01.8.2025 for filing
replication, if any.

10. On that day neither the respondent-plaintiff raised any objection
that the written statement is filed beyond the period of 120 days nor did the
acceptance of the written statement by the Court was objected, even the copy
of the written statement was accepted by the respondent-plaintiff. In such
circumstances, the question arises as to whether the trial Court can pass a
subsequent order and strike of the defence of the petitioner-defendant and order
that the written statement be taken of the record?
10.1 The facts and circumstances indicate that after accepting the
written statement on record, the trial Court has recalled its own order by
passing the impugned order. Section 151 of the CPC provides for civil
inherent jurisdiction, which reads as under:
“151. Saving of inherent powers of Court .-
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make
such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court.”
11. In the case of Budhia Swain v. Gopi Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, (1999) 4 SCC 396 Budhia Swain v. Gopi Budhia Swain v. Gopi nath Deb, (1999) 4 SCC 396 nath Deb, (1999) 4 SCC 396 nath Deb, (1999) 4 SCC 396 ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6.6.6.6. What is a power to recall? Inherent power to recall its own
order vesting in tribunals or courts was noticed in Indian Bank v.
Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 550] Vide para 23, this
Court has held that the courts have inherent power to recall and set
aside an order
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CR CR-3547 CR CR 3547 3547-2026 3547 2026 2026 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M)
-5-

obtained by fraud practised upon the court,
(i)

(ii) when the court is misled by a party, or

(iii) when the court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a
party.
In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1988) 2 SCC 602 : 1988 SCC
(Cri) 372 : AIR 1988 SC 1531, para 130] (vide para 130), this Court
has noticed motions to set aside judgments being permitted where

(i) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a
necessary party had not been served at all and was shown as served
or in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party had died and the
estate was not represented,

(ii) a judgment was obtained by fraud,

(iii) a party has had no notice and a decree was made against
him and such party approaches the court for setting aside the
decision ex debito justitiae on proof of the fact that there was no
service.
7.
In Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. XIX) under the chapter
"Judgment - Opening and Vacating" (paras 265 to 284, at pp. 487-
510) the law on the subject has been stated. The grounds on which
the courts may open or vacate their judgments are generally matters
which render the judgment void or which are specified in statutes
authorising such actions. Invalidity of the judgment of such a nature
as to render it void is a valid ground for vacating it at least if the
invalidity is apparent on the face of the record. Fraud or collusion in
obtaining a judgment is a sufficient ground for opening or vacating it.
A judgment secured in violation of an agreement not to enter a
judgment may be vacated on that ground. However, in general, a
judgment will not be opened or vacated on grounds which could
have been pleaded in the original action. A motion to vacate will not
be entered when the proper remedy is by some other proceedings,
such as by appeal. The right to vacation of a judgment may be lost by
waiver or estoppel. Where a party injured acquiesces in the rendition
of the judgment or submits to it, waiver or estoppel results.
8.
In our opinion a tribunal or a court may recall an order
earlier made by it if

(i) the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the
inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent,

(ii) there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment,

(iii) there has been a mistake of the court prejudicing a party, or

(iv) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a
necessary party had not been served at all or had died and the estate
was not represented.
The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when the
ground for reopening the proceedings or vacating the judgment was
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CR CR-3547 CR CR 3547 3547-2026 3547 2026 2026 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M)
-6-
available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or
where a proper remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of
appeal or revision was available but was not availed. The right to
seek vacation of a judgment may be lost by waiver, estoppel or
acquiescence."
12. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Prakash Ram Prakash Ram Prakash Ram Prakash
Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan, (2013) 11 SCC 296 Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan, (2013) 11 SCC 296 Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan, (2013) 11 SCC 296 Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan, (2013) 11 SCC 296 further clarifies the law on the
use of the power under section 151 of the CPC by the Court and holds as
follows:
"13. Section 151 CPC is not a substantive provision that confers
the right to get any relief of any kind. It is a mere procedural
provision which enables a party to have the proceedings of a pending
suit conducted in a manner that is consistent with justice and equity.
The court can do justice between the parties before it. Similarly,
inherent powers cannot be used to re-open settled matters. The
inherent powers of the Court must, to that extent, be regarded as
abrogated by the legislature. A provision barring the exercise of
inherent power need not be express, it may even be implied. Inherent
power cannot be used to restrain the execution of a decree at the
instance of one who was not a party to suit. Such power is absolutely
essential for securing the ends of justice, and to overcome the failure
of justice. The Court under section 151 CPC may adopt any
procedure to do justice, unless the same is expressly prohibited.
XXX

19. In view of the above, the law on this issue stands
crystallised to the effect that the inherent powers enshrined under
section 151 CPC can be exercised only where no remedy has been
provided for in any other provision of CPC. In the event that a party
has obtained a decree or order by playing a fraud upon the court, or
where an order has been passed by a mistake of the court, the court
may be justified in rectifying such mistake, either by recalling the
said order, or by passing any other appropriate order. However,
inherent powers cannot be used in conflict of any other existing
provision, or in case a remedy has been provided for by any other
provision of CPC. Moreover, in the event that a fraud has been
played upon a party, the same may not be a case where inherent
powers can be exercised."
13. Further, in the case of My Palace Mutually Aided Coop. Society v. My Palace Mutually Aided Coop. Society v. My Palace Mutually Aided Coop. Society v. My Palace Mutually Aided Coop. Society v.
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CR CR-3547 CR CR 3547 3547-2026 3547 2026 2026 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M)
-7-
B. Mahesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 1063 B. Mahesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 1063 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
B. Mahesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 1063 B. Mahesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 1063
under:
"27. In exercising powers under section 151 of the CPC, it
cannot be said that the civil courts can exercise substantive
jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues. A Court having
jurisdiction over the relevant subject matter has the power to decide
and may come either to a right or a wrong conclusion. Even if a
wrong conclusion is arrived at or an incorrect decree is passed by the
jurisdictional court, the same is binding on the parties until it is set
aside by an appellate court or through other remedies provided in law.

28. Section 151 of the CPC can only be applicable if there is no
alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions
of law. Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or
create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. Section
151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals,
revisions, or reviews. A party cannot find solace in Section 151 to
allege and rectify historic wrongs and bypass procedural safeguards
inbuilt in the CPC."

14. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is evident that the scope of
Section 151 of the CPC is limited and the inherent powers enshrined therein
can be exercised only where no remedy has been provided in any other
provision of law. In the present case, the trial Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction as nothing has been observed while recalling the initial order dated
14.07.2025 that the case falls within an exception of Section 151 of CPC. The
matter was put to rest on 14.07.2025 as the written statement was filed in the
court, the same was accepted by the trial Court without there being any
objection from the party opposite and even the copy was accepted by the
respondent-plaintiff and the matter was adjourned for filing of the replication.
Subsequently, the trial Court ought not to have recalled its own order by
passing the impugned order by striking the defence of the petitioner-defendant.
Since the impugned order suffers from illegality that the trial Court exceeds its
jurisdiction, as such the same is liable to be set aside.
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CR CR-3547 CR CR 3547 3547-2026 3547 2026 2026 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M)
-8-
15. Consequently, the present civil revision petition is accepted, the
impugned order dated 08.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) stands set aside.
16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
30. 30.10 30. 30. 10 10.2026 10 .2026 .2026 .2026 [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN]
Avtar/Atul Sethi JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Whether reportable Whether reportable Whether reportable Whether reportable : Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
ATUL SETHI
2026.11.02 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh