### Striking out defense under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC is a last resort, reserved for willful default.

The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit wherein the trial court, on 03/09/2025, allowed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC, directing the defendants to produce specific documents via affidavit.

Due to non-compliance, the trial court closed the defendants' right to produce said documents on 07/10/2025.

On 29/10/2025, the defendants filed an application under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to reconsider the closure order and bring the documents on record.

Simultaneously, the petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rule 21 of the CPC to strike out the defense.

The trial court rejected the petitioner's application and allowed the defendants' request via the impugned order dated 20/01/2026.

1. Whether the trial court was competent to allow the production of documents under Section 94 of the CPC after the right to produce them had been closed by a previous order.

2. Whether the defense of the respondents should be struck down under Order 11 Rule 21 of the CPC for non-compliance with discovery orders.

The court primarily applied Section 94(e) of the CPC, which empowers the court to pass interlocutory orders as may appear just and convenient.

It also referenced Order 47 Rule 1 regarding the court's power to review its own orders.

Furthermore, the court relied on the Supreme Court precedent of *Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. Trilok Nath Mahajan* (1978) 4 SCC 188, which established that the extreme penalty of striking out a defense under Order 11 Rule 21 should only be invoked as a last resort when default is "willful" or "contumacious".

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s technical objection that the defendants were required to specifically challenge or seek a formal recall of the order dated 07/10/2025 before filing the documents.

The Court reasoned that since the defendants' application under Section 94 included a prayer for "reconsideration" or "recall," the trial court was well within its jurisdiction to grant such relief in the interest of justice.

Applying the *Babbar Sewing Machine Co.* test, the Court observed that the defendants' delay did not amount to willful or contumacious conduct.

The Court found that the trial court’s decision to allow the documents facilitated substantial justice and that interfering with such an order under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 was unwarranted.

The Court affirmed that striking out a defense is a drastic measure not applicable here, as the default was not willful.

The impugned order dated 20/01/2026 was upheld.