The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure must serve justice, not obstruct it. In a significant ruling, the Court set aside an order striking off a defendant’s defence due to a court-recorded error, emphasizing that inadvertent procedural lapses, especially when the party is not at fault, cannot justify denial of a fair hearing.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by Gurinder Singh against Finstem Infrastructure Private Ltd. in Civil Suit No. 597 of 2021 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon. The petitioner, Finstem Infrastructure, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC seeking to be permitted to file a written statement after having been initially non-compliant. This application was allowed by the trial court on 22.04.2025, based on a ‘No Objection’ recorded by the respondent’s counsel.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was permitted to file a written statement under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC vide order dated 22.04.2025.
- On 12.05.2025 and 11.08.2025, the parties jointly requested referral of the matter to the National Lok Adalat, as reflected in zimni orders (pages 34 - 35 of the paper book).
- On 20.11.2025, the matter was scheduled for filing of the written statement, but the trial court erroneously recorded ‘No PW is present’ and adjourned the matter to 20.12.2025.
- On 20.12.2025, without granting an opportunity to file the written statement, the trial court struck off the petitioner’s defence, citing that sufficient time had already been granted.
- On 17.01.2026, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking recall or review of the order striking off its defence; this was dismissed.
- The petitioner filed the present civil revision petition on 28.03.2026.
Procedural History
- 22.04.2025: Trial court allowed application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC based on respondent’s ‘No Objection’.
- 12.05.2025: Matter referred to National Lok Adalat by joint request of parties.
- 11.08.2025: Second zimni order confirming Lok Adalat referral.
- 20.11.2025: Hearing scheduled for filing written statement; court erroneously recorded ‘No PW is present’.
- 20.12.2025: Trial court struck off petitioner’s defence.
- 17.01.2026: Application under Section 151 CPC for recall dismissed.
- 28.03.2026: Civil Revision No. 1612 of 2026 filed before the High Court.
- 07.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Nidhi Gupta.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the orders dated 20.12.2025 and 17.01.2026, restoration of its right to file a written statement, and direction to the trial court to grant one effective opportunity to file the written statement.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the striking off of a defendant’s defence under CPC, following a procedural error by the trial court and without evidence of deliberate neglect, violates the principle that procedural rules are meant to advance justice and not defeat it.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner had been duly permitted to file a written statement under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC on 22.04.2025, and the subsequent failure to file was due to an inadvertent recording by the trial court on 20.11.2025, which wrongly noted ‘No PW is present’. The matter had also been referred to the National Lok Adalat at the joint request of both parties, indicating cooperation and absence of mala fide. The petitioner was not negligent, and the striking off order deprived it of a fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits, causing irreparable prejudice.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not file a written counter-argument before the High Court. The record indicates no opposition was raised to the petitioner’s contentions during the hearing.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the sequence of events and found no evidence of deliberate delay or negligence on the part of the petitioner. The trial court had already granted relief under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, and the subsequent failure to file the written statement was attributable to a clerical error in recording the hearing status. The referral to the National Lok Adalat further demonstrated the parties’ intent to resolve the matter amicably and cooperatively.
"It is a settled principle that procedural rules are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it."
The Court emphasized that the denial of an opportunity to file a written statement, particularly where the default arises from court error rather than party inaction, amounts to a denial of natural justice. The Court noted that the petitioner had been active in pursuing its rights, having secured permission to file a written statement and participating in Lok Adalat proceedings. The trial court’s decision to strike off the defence without affording a fresh opportunity was disproportionate and unjust.
The Court rejected the notion that ‘sufficient time had already been granted’ could justify such a drastic remedy in the absence of wilful default. It held that the interests of justice required the petitioner to be given one effective opportunity to file the written statement, subject to reasonable costs.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The orders dated 20.12.2025 and 17.01.2026 were set aside. The trial court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 20,000 to the respondent, to be paid on or before the next date of hearing before the trial court, which is 10.04.2026. All pending applications stand disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Errors Cannot Justify Striking Off Defence
- Practitioners must argue that striking off defence under Order 18 Rule 5 CPC or similar provisions is impermissible if the default stems from court error, not party negligence.
- Courts must distinguish between inadvertent lapses and deliberate non-compliance before invoking drastic remedies.
Lok Adalat Referral Supports Absence of Mala Fide
- Joint referral to Lok Adalat can be cited as evidence of cooperative litigation conduct, undermining claims of dilatory tactics.
- Such referrals should be weighed as indicators of the party’s intent to resolve the dispute, not evade proceedings.
Costs as a Balanced Remedy
- Courts may impose reasonable costs (as here, Rs. 20,000) to deter future delays without denying substantive rights.
- This approach balances procedural discipline with the right to be heard, aligning with State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and S.P. Gupta v. Union of India.
Opportunity Must Be Meaningful
- A ‘one effective opportunity’ must be clearly defined in terms of deadline and consequences of non-compliance.
- The direction must be specific and enforceable, not left to vague discretion.
Judicial Discretion Must Serve Justice
- Section 151 CPC empowers courts to act in the interest of justice; this judgment reinforces that such power must be exercised to restore, not deny, access to justice.
- The ruling discourages mechanical application of procedural rules and encourages judicial empathy in case management.
