Defendant’s Late Bid To File Written Statement Fails After Three Plaintiff Witnesses Testify, 90-Day Deadline Already Missed

The petitioner appeared in the underlying suit through counsel on 03.01.2024 and later engaged new counsel, who filed a fresh power of attorney on 09.07.2025.

The petitioner did not file a written statement within 90 days, despite the Trial Court having granted a last opportunity.

On 21.01.2026, the Trial Court struck off the defence of defendants 1, 2 and 9 for failing to file their written statements.

The petitioner did not challenge that order before issues were framed and the plaintiff’s evidence began; several plaintiff’s witnesses were examined, and the matter was listed for further evidence.

The petitioner then filed the present revision petition.

No copy of the proposed written statement was annexed, and counsel could not confirm whether it had been prepared and finalised.

The Trial Court relied on the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure empowering it to strike off a defendant’s defence for failure to file a written statement within the prescribed period; the specific provision is not identified in the supplied extract.

The Court also relied on Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Private Limited and Others, 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1175, for the principles that courts should control unnecessary delay, are not obliged to grant repeated adjournments, and should avoid misplaced sympathy or indulgence that undermines timely progress of litigation.

The Court found that the petitioner had allowed the order striking off his defence to remain unchallenged while the suit proceeded through the framing of issues and into the plaintiff’s evidence.

His delay, together with the absence of an annexed written statement and counsel’s inability to confirm that one had been finalised, supported the Court’s assessment that he had been negligent in pursuing the matter.

In light of the trial’s progress, allowing a written statement at that stage would turn the clock back; the Court therefore declined to grant further indulgence, applying the concern against delay and misplaced sympathy expressed in Shiv Cotex.

It held that permitting a written statement at the advanced stage reached in the trial was not warranted.

Any pending applications were also closed.