Kulbhushan Kumar vs Ki9Rat Kumar And Others

APURVA
2026.11.03 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the
instant revision petition before this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
paper book with his able assistance.
5. In the present case, although the petitioner appeared in the
aforesaid suit as far back as 03.01.2024 through Sh. V.K. Garg, Advocate,
however, he subsequently changed his counsel and engaged Sh. Jagdeep
Singh Punia, Advocate, who filed a fresh Power of Attorney on his behalf on
09.07.2025. Evidently, the petitioner failed to file his written statement
within the stipulated period of 90 days, despite the grant of a last opportunity
APURVA
2026.11.03 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh

by the learned Trial Court on 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-2). Accordingly, vide
the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-4), the learned Trial
Court struck off the petitioner’s defence for non-filing of the written
statement. The relevant extract thereof reads as under:-
“ Today the case was fixed for filing written statement and
reply to stay application on behalf of defendant no. 1, 2, 9, 10.
However, from the perusal of the record it reveals that
defendant no. 10 already filed written statement in the present
case. Further perusal of the record reveals that defendant no.
1, 2, 9 had earlier a common power-of-attorney through Sh.
VK Garg, Advocate on 03.01.2024 and thereby entering their
appearance before this court. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 and 2
changed their counsel and filed a fresh power-of-attorney
through Sh. Jagdeep Singh Punia, Advocate on 09.07.2025.
It is observed from the record that the limitation period
of 90 days within which the defendants were required to file
their written statement after entering appearance through the
power-of-attomey dated 03.01.2024 expired on 02.04.2024.
Despite the lapse of said period, no written statement had been
filed by defendant no. 1, 2, 9 and no sufficient cause had been
shown for such default.
Under the provisions of CPC, this court is empowered to
strike off the defence of a defendant who failed to file written
statement within the prescribed period. The court is satisfied
that the present case is fit case for exercising such
power as the defendants have remained in default for an
inordinate period of time, thereby causing unnecessary
delay in expeditious disposal of the case. Accordingly, the
defence of defendant no.1, 2, 9 stands struck off. Now to come
upon 12.02.2026 for filing replication, if any. ”
6. A perusal of the above extracted order reveals that the matter
was adjourned to 12.02.2026, on which date the learned Trial Court framed
APURVA
2026.11.03 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh

the following issues:
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction, as prayed for? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration,
as prayed for? OPP
(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the
present form? OPD
( 4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus
standi to file the present suit? OPD
(5) Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by
his own act and conduct? OPD
(6) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
OPP
( 7) Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court
fee and jurisdiction? OPD
( 8) Relief.
6.1 Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for the plaintiff’s
evidence. It is noteworthy that the petitioner took no steps to challenge the
order dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-4), whereby his defence was struck off
on account of non-filing of the written statement. Subsequently, the
plaintiff’s evidence commenced and, as is evident from the order dated
26.08.2026 (Annexure P-6), the plaintiff’s witnesses, i.e. PW-2, PW-3 and
PW-6, were duly examined. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to
14.10.2026 for the remaining plaintiff’s evidence.
7. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a copy
of the order dated 14.10.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Phul, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. The
relevant extract thereof reads as under:-
“ PW-1 Kirat Kumar is present but not cross examined
and he is bound down for the date fixed. Case is adjourned to
APURVA
2026.11.03 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh

03.12.2026 for cross-examination of PW-1 and for remaining
evidence of the plaintiff. Remaining witnesses be summoned as
per list.”
8. From the aforementioned facts, it is evident that the petitioner
made no effort to challenge the order dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-4),
whereby his defence was struck off, even until the recording of the
plaintiff’s evidence. It was only at this stage that the present revision petition
came to be filed. Even with the revision petition, no copy of the written
statement was annexed. Upon a specific query being put to learned counsel
for the petitioner as to whether the written statement had been prepared and
finalised, learned counsel was unable to respond.
9. Having considered the matter in its entirety, I am of the
considered view that the petitioner has been utterly negligent in pursuing the
matter before the learned Trial Court.
10. It has been laid time and again that a party to a suit is not at
liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure. A party has to be more serious
and vigilant in prosecuting and producing evidence. Thus, deprecating grant
of further opportunity to a party to lead evidence and branding the same as
misplaced sympathy, where despite opportunities the said party had failed to
lead evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shiv Cotex v.
Tirgun Auto Plast Private Limited and Others”, 2011 SCC Online SC
1175 , has held as follows:
“ xxx xxx xxx
14. Second, and equally important, the High Court upset the
concurrent judgment and decree of the two courts on
misplaced sympathy and non-existent justification. The High
Court observed that the stakes in the suit being very high, the
plaintiff should not be non-suited on the basis of no evidence.
APURVA
2026.11.03 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh

But who is to be blamed for this lapse' It is the plaintiff alone.
As a matter of fact, the trial court had given more than
sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to produce evidence in
support of its case. As noticed above, after the issues were
framed on 19-7-2006, on three occasions, the trial court fixed
the matter for the plaintiff's evidence but on none of these
dates any evidence was let in by it. What should the court do in
such circumstances' Is the court obliged to give adjournment
after adjournment merely because the stakes are high in the
dispute' Should the court be a silent spectator and leave
control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not
to take the case forward?
15. It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek-and the courts
grant- adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where
the Judges are little proactive and refuse to accede to the
requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all
sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. It is not
surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced
sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional
courts compound the malady further. The case in hand is a
case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high time that courts
become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and
realise that adjournments do dent the efficacy of the judicial
process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the
litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later.
The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every
date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit... ”
11. Since the trial has already progressed beyond the stage of
framing of issues, and the evidence of some of the plaintiff’s witnesses also
stands recorded, therefore, permitting the petitioner to file his written
statement at this stage would amount to turning the clock back, which
cannot be permitted in law.
APURVA
2026.11.03 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh

12. Keeping in view the above discussion, the present revision
petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.
13. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
APURVA
2026.11.03 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh