Manpreet Singh vs Mahabir Singh

SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patti, whereby the defence of the petitioner-defendant was struck off on account of non-filing of the written statement, as well as the order dated 11.08.2026 (Annexure P-5), whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the aforesaid order and permission to file the written statement was also dismissed.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration along with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner entered appearance through counsel on 07.05.2025. However, the written statement could not be filed and, consequently, vide order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-3), the defence of the petitioner was struck off. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application seeking recall of the said order and permission to file the written statement, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.08.2026 (Annexure P-5).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-filing of the written statement was neither intentional nor wilful, but was due to the fact that, although the written statement was ready for filing, the parents of the counsel representing the petitioner-defendant met with an accident, due to which the written statement could not be filed. He submits that the written statement is ready and if permitted, the same shall be filed on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.09.2026 before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the matter is still at an initial stage and no evidence has yet been adduced by the plaintiff.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned orders as well as the other documents available on record.

Since the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the plaint as well as the relevant orders, there is no necessity to call for the record of the learned trial Court. In the circumstances, issuance of notice to the respondent is also dispensed with so as to avoid unnecessary financial burden upon him.

As noticed above, learned counsel for the petitioner has made an innocuous prayer seeking a limited opportunity to file the written statement. Considering the aforesaid aspect and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate, in the given circumstances, to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement. In doing so, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-plaintiff, who can be adequately compensated by payment of costs.

Keeping in view the fact that no evidence has yet been adduced in the suit and that the non-filing of the written statement, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, was not intentional but due to the reasons aforementioned, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement on record, subject to payment of costs.

Consequently, without commenting on merits, the impugned orders dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) and 11.08.2026 (Annexure P-5) are hereby set aside. The petitioner is granted one opportunity to file his written statement before the learned trial Court on the date already fixed, i.e. 22.09.2026, subject to payment of costs of ₹10,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff, which shall be paid before the learned trial Court on the said date.

Since the order has been passed without issuing any notice to the respondent, therefore, the respondent will be at liberty to approach this Court, in case he feels aggrieved by the present order.

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.