The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the right to a fair hearing under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the opportunity to file a written statement in a civil suit. Striking off a defendant’s defence without affording a reasonable chance to comply is a violation of natural justice, even where procedural defaults occur.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant No.2, seeking to restrain him from interfering with their alleged rights over a property. The petitioner, who had not appeared in the suit since its inception, failed to file a written statement within the time prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Key Facts
- The suit was instituted by the respondents on an unspecified date prior to 22.05.2025
- The petitioner first appeared before the Trial Court on 22.05.2025
- No notice or direction was issued to the petitioner to file a written statement prior to 22.05.2025
- No application for extension of time was filed by the petitioner prior to the impugned order
- The petitioner did not receive any formal notice or reminder regarding the deadline for filing the written statement
- The Trial Court passed the impugned order on 28.11.2025, striking off the petitioner’s defence solely on the ground of non-filing of the written statement
Procedural History
- 22.05.2025: Petitioner first appeared before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khadur Sahib
- 28.11.2025: Trial Court passed order striking off the petitioner’s defence for non-filing of written statement (Annexure P-5)
- 01.04.2026: Writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 28.11.2025, restoration of his defence, and an opportunity to file a written statement in the pending suit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a civil court may strike off a defendant’s defence under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure without affording a reasonable opportunity to file a written statement, particularly when no prior notice or warning was issued.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was not given any prior opportunity to explain the delay or to seek an extension. The Trial Court acted mechanically, without considering the principles of natural justice or the gravity of depriving a party of the right to defend a suit involving proprietary rights. Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to emphasize that the right to be heard is a fundamental facet of fair trial.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not file a written reply or appear before the High Court. No counter-arguments were presented to contest the petitioner’s claim of procedural deprivation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC permits striking off defence only as a last resort, and never in a manner that defeats the ends of justice. The provision is not meant to be used as a punitive measure against litigants who are merely late, especially when no prior notice or opportunity to cure the default has been given.
"The right to file a written statement is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive right which enables a defendant to present his case and rebut the plaintiff’s claims. Depriving a party of this right without any opportunity to explain the delay amounts to a denial of natural justice."
The Court noted that the petitioner had appeared in court on 22.05.2025, indicating a willingness to participate in the proceedings. The absence of any communication from the Trial Court regarding the deadline, or any warning of consequences for non-compliance, rendered the order arbitrary. The Court emphasized that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice when valuable rights - such as those over immovable property - are at stake.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 28.11.2025 striking off the petitioner’s defence was set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit costs of Rs. 5,000 with the District Legal Services Authority, Tarn Taran. Upon production of the receipt, the Trial Court shall grant one effective opportunity to file the written statement. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Trial Court for compliance. All pending applications stand disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Defaults Must Be Excused With Reasonable Opportunity
- Practitioners must argue that striking off defence under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC requires prior notice and a chance to cure the default
- Courts cannot mechanically apply the rule without examining whether the default was wilful or inadvertent
- The burden lies on the court to ensure that procedural rules do not become instruments of injustice
Fair Hearing Trumps Technical Non-Compliance
- In suits involving property rights, the threshold for invoking Order VIII Rule 10 is higher
- Absence of prior communication from the court renders any order striking off defence liable to be set aside
- Courts must record reasons for denying an opportunity to file a written statement, especially when the defendant has appeared in person
Costs as a Deterrent, Not a Penalty
- The imposition of costs in this case serves as a deterrent against delay, not as punishment
- Practitioners may now seek costs as a condition for restoration of defence, rather than outright dismissal
- This approach balances procedural discipline with substantive justice
