(Oral):

1. The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar, District Jalandhar, vide which the defence of the petitioner (proforma defendant No.4) was struck off on account of non-filing of written statement.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 against respondents No.3 to 5 and the petitioner (proforma defendant No.4) on 23.11.2023. The suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC (Annexure P-2). Petitioner put in appearance before the trial Court on 24.01.2025 and filed an application for setting aside ex parte order dated 03.10.2024, vide which she was proceeded against ex parte and the case was adjourned to 03.03.2025 for filing reply to the said application. The said application was allowed on the statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that he would have no objection to the application being allowed and the petitioner-defendant No.4 was granted opportunity to contest the suit. The case was adjourned to 07.04.2025 for filing of the written statement on behalf of the petitioner-defendant No.4. Thereafter, the case was adjourned twice for the said purpose. Eventually, by way of the impugned order dated 22.05.2025, the defence of the petitioner-respondent No.4 was struck off on account of non-deposit of costs and non-filing of the written statement.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner put in appearance before the trial Court through his counsel on 24.01.2025. He submits that as the respondents-plaintiffs did not furnish the correct address of the petitioner-defendant No.4, she could not be served and was proceeded against ex parte. He submits that as soon as the petitioner came to know about the filing of the suit, he put in appearance before the trial Court and filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, which was duly allowed. She was granted an opportunity to file the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. However, petitioner could not deposit the costs and eventually the defence of the petitioner was struck off by the trial Court on the ground that neither the costs were deposited nor was the written statement filed. He submits that as the petitioner had to go abroad on 17.05.2025 on account of some medical emergency and returned back only on 26.09.2025, she could not file the written statement on time.

5. Learned counsel submits that though the statutory period for filing the written statement had elapsed, non-filing of the written statement was purely unintentional and bona fide. He further submits that the case is still at its initial stage and, therefore, one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file the written statement, failing which the rights of the petitioner shall be gravely prejudiced.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. There would be no necessity of issuing notice to the respondents, for, in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, no prejudice would be caused to them.

8. Concededly, the petitioner had initially not appeared before the trial Court and was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 03.10.2024. She put in appearance before the trial Court on 24.01.2025 and filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, which was duly allowed. She was granted an opportunity to file the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- which was not deposited by her and eventually vide order dated 22.05.2025, her defence was struck off for non-filing of the written statement.

9. No doubt, once the petitioner had put in appearance, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to file the written statement within the time period as envisaged under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. However, it has also to be borne in mind that the case is at its initial stage.

10. As per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”), written statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons which is extendable up to 90 days. Order 8 Rule 10 CPC lays down the procedure to be followed in case of non-filing of written statement. In Kailash V/s Nanhku and others, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 379, the Supreme Court of India opined that the amendment in Rule 8(1) CPC would not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time further. As no penal consequences as such have been provided, the provisions being in the domain of the procedural law would not, therefore, be mandatory. It was held that ordinarily the time schedule should be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception and that such extension of time should not be granted as a matter of routine, especially beyond a period of 90 days. It was held that in case any extension is to be granted, the same should be for good reasons to be recorded in writing. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of India was again seized of this issue in the case of R.N. Jadi V/s Subhashchandra, 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 588, wherein it was held that the grant of extension of time beyond 30 days is not automatic. The Supreme Court of India held that the power of the Court has to be exercised with caution and for adequate reasons to be recorded and extension of time beyond 90 days must be granted only based on a clear satisfaction of the justification for granting such extension.

11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, as observed, the case is at its initial stage. No doubt, the petitioner did not file the written statement within the time period as envisaged under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. However, having considered the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the delay is not such which should disentitle the petitioner from presenting her stand before the trial Court. The reasoning given is also reasonable, though not fully justified. It has to be borne in mind that cases should be decided on merits and not on mere technicalities. In the considered opinion of this Court, rights of the petitioner would be gravely prejudiced if she is not permitted to file the written statement. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement.

12. That being so, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar, District Jalandhar, vide which the defence of the petitioner (proforma defendant No.4) was struck off on account of non-filing of written statement, is set aside. One opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file the written statement, which shall, however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/-, which shall be paid to the respondents-plaintiffs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.