Ravi Puri vs Davinder Kumar And Others

CR-8377-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 113 )
CR-8377-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.11.2026
RAVI PURI
… Petitioner
Versus
DAVINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court, seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 18.07.2025
( Annexure P-2 ), passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Kapurthala, whereby the defence of petitioner-defendants No. 1 to 4 was
struck off, as well as the subsequent order dated 18.05.2026 ( Annexure P-
4 ), whereby the Trial Court dismissed their application seeking review of
the aforesaid order. Both orders are assailed as being legally unsustainable,
arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of
judicial discretion.
2. As per the averments set out in the revision petition, the
respondent-plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction seeking to

CR-8377-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
restrain the petitioner-defendant No.2 from forcibly dispossessing them
from the suit property, demolishing any specific portion thereof or
otherwise interfering with their possession. Petitioner-defendant No.2
entered appearance through counsel on 03.10.2024. However, on account
of non-filing of the written statement within the prescribed period, the
defence of petitioner-defendants No. 1 to 4 was struck off vide order dated
18.07.2025 (Annexure P-2).
2.1. The petitioner asserts that they remained unaware of the
passing of the aforesaid order, as the clerk of their counsel had informed
them that the matter had merely been adjourned to 22.08.2025 for filing of
the written statement. It was only upon subsequently checking the case
status online that they discovered that their defence had already been
struck off. Consequently, they moved an application seeking review of the
order on the very same day. The said application, however, came to be
dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 18.05.2026 (Annexure P-4).
Both orders have been assailed as being legally unsustainable, arbitrary
and contrary to the principles of fairness and substantial justice.
3. The petitioner further contends that the Trial Court failed to
appreciate that the default in filing the written statement was attributable
to an inadvertent communication lapse on the part of the clerk of their
counsel and was neither deliberate nor willful. It is urged that a litigant
ought not to be made to suffer on account of an inadvertent mistake or
omission attributable to counsel or his clerk, particularly when the
petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the matter had been
adjourned to 22.08.2025 for filing of the written statement. The Trial

CR-8377-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
Court, according to the petitioner, committed a material error in dismissing
the review application without duly appreciating the explanation furnished
for the default and the circumstances leading to the delay. It is, therefore,
prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioner be afforded
one effective opportunity to file their written statement, subject to such
terms as this Court may deem appropriate, so that the lis may be
adjudicated on its merits rather than being foreclosed on account of a
procedural lapse.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, with his
able assistance, having meticulously scrutinised the paper-book and the
impugned orders, this Court finds no merit in the present revision petition.
A perusal of the order sheets and the history of the proceedings reveals
that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance through Mr. M.R. Kalia,
Advocate, whereas defendant Nos. 3 and 4 appeared through Ms. Deepti
Marwaha, Advocate, on 03.10.2024. Thereafter, the matter was repeatedly
adjourned to enable the defendants to file their written statement, initially
to 12.11.2024 and subsequently to 07.01.2025, 13.02.2025, 13.03.2025,
17.04.2025, 06.05.2025 and, lastly, to 18.07.2025, subject to payment of
costs of ` 100/-. While granting the final adjournment, the Trial Court had
categorically indicated that no further opportunity would be afforded.
However, even on 18.07.2025, the written statement remained unfiled and
the costs imposed on the previous occasion had also not been deposited.
Taking note of the fact that more than 90 days had elapsed and that no
plausible explanation had been furnished for the continued default, the
Trial Court struck off the defence of the petitioner-defendant No.2.

CR-8377-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
Subsequently, the application seeking review of the said order was
dismissed vide the impugned order dated 18.05.2026, on the ground that
no reasonable or sufficient cause had been disclosed for their failure to file
the written statement either on 18.07.2025 or on any of the preceding
dates.
4.1. The significant aspect of the matter is that, even before this
Court, the petitioner has failed to furnish any cogent explanation for not
filing the written statement within the prescribed period of 30 days from
the date of service, as contemplated under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. It is
true that the provision is directory in nature and that the Court retains
discretion to extend the time for filing the written statement even beyond
the outer period of 90 days. However, such discretion is neither unfettered
nor intended to permit an indefinite extension of time in the absence of
exceptional circumstances or a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The
indulgence contemplated by the provision must be exercised judiciously
and upon the defendant demonstrating circumstances which genuinely
prevented compliance within the prescribed period, particularly where
such circumstances were beyond the defendant's control.
4.2. The legal position in this regard stands authoritatively
elucidated by the Supreme Court in Kailash vs. Nanhku and Others,
2005(4) SCC 480 , wherein it has been held that, in exceptional
circumstances, the Court may permit the filing of a written statement
beyond the prescribed period, provided sufficient justification is
forthcoming and the exercise of such discretion is supported by reasons.
The directory character of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, however, cannot be

CR-8377-2026 (O&M) -:5:-
construed as conferring an unrestricted licence upon a defendant(s) to
prolong the proceedings indefinitely or to disregard the timelines
prescribed by the statute.
4.3. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, the
conduct of the petitioner does not warrant any further indulgence. In the
present case, the Trial Court had already been magnanimous in affording
the petitioners repeated opportunities over a period spanning nearly nine
months, i.e. approximately 270 days, to file their written statement.
Despite such repeated indulgence, they neither filed the written statement
nor complied with the direction regarding payment of costs. More
significantly, no circumstance has been pleaded, much less substantiated,
to demonstrate that any factor beyond their control incapacitated them
from complying with the directions of the Trial Court. The explanation
sought to be advanced on the basis of an alleged communication lapse on
the part of the counsel's clerk also remains unsupported by any cogent
material and does not satisfactorily account for the prolonged and repeated
defaults. Even in the present revision petition, the petitioner has not
disclosed any plausible reason for their failure to file the written statement
on 18.07.2025 or on any of the earlier dates fixed for that purpose.
4.4. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim an
equitable indulgence from this Court in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Procedural
timelines are intended to secure the orderly and expeditious adjudication
of civil disputes, and the discretion of the Court cannot be invoked to
perpetuate delay in the absence of a bona fide and convincing explanation.

CR-8377-2026 (O&M) -:6:-
A litigant who, despite repeated opportunities, fails to avail the same
without demonstrating sufficient cause cannot seek to attribute the
consequences of such persistent default to mere procedural technicalities.
This Court, therefore, finds no illegality, perversity or material infirmity in
the impugned orders warranting interference in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction.
4.5. Consequently, the present revision petition, being devoid of
merit, is dismissed with exemplary costs of 10,000/-, to be deposited by `
the petitioner with the Poor Patients Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.
5. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined
strictly to the adjudication of the present proceedings and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying
dispute or prejudice the rights, claims or contentions of either party in any
other proceedings.
6. In view of the final disposal of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No
further orders are warranted.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
13.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No