After Counsel Cited Son’s Viral Fever, P&H HC Gives Defendants One Final Chance To File Written Statement On ₹10,000 Costs

The petitioners, defendants No. 1 and 2 in a civil suit for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction, appeared before the Trial Court on 13 April 2026.

The matter was adjourned for filing their written statement; a further opportunity was given on 18 May 2026.

On 9 July 2026, the concerned Bar Association observed a “No Work Day.”

On 6 August 2026, the Trial Court struck off the petitioners’ defence for failure to file a written statement, and on 13 October 2026 dismissed their application to recall that order.

The petitioners sought supervisory relief under Article 227, explaining that their counsel could not attend on 6 August because of an urgent call from his son’s school concerning the child’s viral fever.

They submitted that the written statement was ready and requested one effective opportunity to file it.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle that, in the interests of justice, a party may be granted a limited and effective opportunity to place its defence on record where the circumstances justify indulgence; any prejudice to the opposing party may be addressed by costs.

The Court imposed a strict deadline and stipulated that no further opportunity would be granted.

No statute beyond Article 227 or any precedent was cited.

The Court considered the petitioners’ prior opportunities, the Bar Association’s “No Work Day” on 9 July, and the explanation offered for counsel’s absence on 6 August.

It concluded that denying the petitioners an opportunity to file their defence would prejudice their ability to contest the suit on its merits, while any prejudice to the plaintiff could be compensated by costs.

To balance those considerations, it granted one opportunity, subject to payment of costs and filing on the next hearing date, with no further opportunity permitted.

The Court dispensed with notice to the plaintiff because it considered that no prejudice would be caused by granting the limited relief, while preserving the plaintiff’s liberty to approach the Court if aggrieved.

The petitioners were permitted to file their written statement before the Trial Court on 21 December 2026, subject to payment of ₹10,000 in costs to the plaintiff.

No further opportunity was to be granted, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law.

The order expressed no view on the merits of the suit.