Despite Repeated Chances, P&H HC Upholds Defence Strike-Off For Defendants Who Never Filed Written Statements, Imposes ₹10,000 Costs

The plaintiffs brought a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner-defendants entered appearance on 3 October 2024 but did not file a written statement despite repeated adjournments.

On 18 July 2025, the Trial Court struck off their defence, noting that more than 90 days had elapsed and that previously ordered costs remained unpaid. The defendants’ review application was dismissed on 18 May 2026. They sought relief under Article 227, attributing the default to a communication lapse by their counsel’s clerk.

Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the timeline for filing a written statement; its time limit is directory, and a court may permit filing beyond 90 days in an appropriate case, but that discretion must be exercised judicially and supported by sufficient justification.

In Kailash v. Nanhku and Others, 2005 (4) SCC 480, the Supreme Court held that filing beyond the prescribed period may be permitted in exceptional circumstances where sufficient justification is shown and the court gives reasons; the directory nature of the provision does not authorise indefinite delay.

Article 227 supervisory intervention is not warranted absent illegality, perversity, or material infirmity in the impugned orders.

The Trial Court had granted repeated opportunities over approximately nine months, including a final adjournment, but the written statement remained unfiled and the costs were unpaid.

The petitioner did not provide a cogent explanation for the repeated defaults; the asserted clerk’s communication lapse was unsupported and did not account for the failure to file on the earlier dates or on 18 July 2025.

Applying Kailash, the Court held that the directory nature of Order VIII Rule 1 did not justify further indulgence without a satisfactory explanation. It therefore found no basis for supervisory interference.

It imposed exemplary costs of ₹10,000, payable by the petitioner to the Poor Patients Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.