High Court upholds requirement of one last effective opportunity for filing defence, reaffirming principle of merits over technicalities in civil proceedings in Punjab & Haryana; binding authority for subordinate courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR-5956-2025 (O&M) of Kundan Singh & Ors. vs. Inderjit Singh @ Indy Singh Sohi & Ors. |
| CNR | PHHC011237152025 |
| Date of Decision | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Sudepti Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench (Mrs. Justice Sudepti Sharma) |
| Questions of Law | Whether striking off defence for non-filing of written statement without granting effective adjournments violates the right to fair hearing? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that litigants must not suffer for their counsel’s lapses and that disputes should be decided on merits rather than on procedural technicalities. When a defendant fails to file a written statement due to a communication gap with counsel, the trial court must grant one last effective opportunity before striking off the defence. Costs may be imposed, but total denial of defence without adequate notice or adjournment is impermissible. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners appeared on 18.02.2025 and were repeatedly adjourned—12.03.2025, 03.04.2025 (No Work Day), 17.04.2025 and 20.05.2025—without filing a written statement. On 20.05.2025 the trial court struck off their defence due to non-filing, citing a communication gap between petitioners and counsel. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Even repeated adjournments that include “No Work Day” count as opportunities; courts must ensure at least one effective hearing date.
- Lapses by counsel do not justify total denial of a party’s defence; merits must prevail over procedural defaults.
- High Court may grant a last chance to file pleadings subject to reasonable costs (Rs. 5,000 to a public welfare fund).
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Review of adjournment history showed petitioners had multiple dates but lacked an effective opportunity due to “No Work Day” and communication issues.
- The principle of adjudicating disputes on merits outweighs penalizing parties for their counsel’s lapses.
- A complete striking off of defence without a final effective opportunity infringes the right to fair hearing.
- Revision jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC permits correction of such procedural errors.
- Imposition of costs ensures balance between remedying counsel’s default and discouraging delay.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- No effective adjournment was granted; one date was a “No Work Day.”
- Communication gap with counsel prevented timely filing of the written statement.
- Written statement is ready; pray for one last opportunity.
Respondents
No submissions recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
- Petitioners were defendants in Civil Suit No. CS-876/2024 before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), SBS Nagar.
- They appeared on 18.02.2025; written statement was directed for 12.03.2025.
- Subsequent dates on 03.04.2025 (No Work Day) and 17.04.2025 passed without filings.
- On 20.05.2025, the trial court struck off their defence for non-filing.
- Petitioners attributed non-filing to a communication gap with their counsel and sought revision.