The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the fundamental right to present a defence. In a significant ruling, the Court set aside an order striking off a defendant’s defence solely for non-filing of a written statement, emphasizing that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice when valuable rights are at stake.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner-defendant from interfering with her alleged possession of a residential property. The petitioner, who was the defendant in the suit, did not file a written statement within the stipulated time. On 21.08.2025, the petitioner appeared before the trial court for the first time, but no written statement was submitted at that stage.
Key Facts
- The suit was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali.
- The petitioner-defendant made his first appearance before the trial court on 21.08.2025.
- No written statement was filed by the petitioner by the deadline prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- The petitioner did not seek an extension of time or explain the delay prior to the impugned order.
- The trial court, without granting any opportunity to explain the delay or to file a belated written statement, passed an order on 05.03.2026 striking off the petitioner’s defence.
Procedural History
- 21.08.2025: Petitioner appeared before the trial court for the first time.
- 05.03.2026: Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali, struck off the petitioner’s defence for non-filing of written statement.
- 08.04.2026: Petitioner filed Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 05.03.2026, restoration of his right to file a written statement, and an opportunity to defend the suit on merits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a trial court may strike off a defendant’s defence under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without affording a reasonable opportunity to explain the delay or to file a belated written statement, particularly when substantial rights are involved.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the striking off of defence was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. He argued that the petitioner had appeared in court on 21.08.2025, indicating his intention to defend the suit, and that the trial court failed to consider whether the delay was condonable or whether the petitioner had a bona fide reason for non-filing. He relied on the doctrine of fair trial under Article 21 and the settled principle that procedural technicalities must not defeat substantive justice.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any written submission. The Court noted the absence of any opposition and dispensed with the issuance of notice to the respondents to avoid unnecessary delay and expense.
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 after giving the defendant a reasonable opportunity to file the written statement. The Court emphasized that the power to strike off defence is not automatic and must be exercised with caution, especially when the rights of the parties involve property and possession.
"The right to defend a suit is a valuable right, and the court must ensure that it is not taken away on account of a mere procedural lapse without considering the circumstances of the case."
The Court noted that the petitioner had appeared in court and had not shown any mala fide intention to delay proceedings. The trial court’s failure to consider whether the delay could be condoned, or whether the petitioner should be granted one last opportunity to file the written statement, amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the trial court acted mechanically and without applying its mind to the facts of the case.
The Court further held that Article 227 empowers the High Court to intervene in cases where subordinate courts act in excess of jurisdiction or fail to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. The order under challenge was found to be perverse and contrary to settled legal principles.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 05.03.2026 striking off the petitioner’s defence was set aside. The petitioner was granted one effective opportunity to file the written statement before the trial court, subject to deposit of costs of ₹5,000 with the District Legal Services Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The trial court was directed to permit filing of the written statement upon production of the receipt of cost deposit. All pending applications stood disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Lapses Cannot Override Substantive Justice
- Practitioners must argue that striking off defence under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is a drastic remedy and must be preceded by a meaningful opportunity to explain delay.
- Courts must record reasons for rejecting belated filings and consider whether the delay prejudices the plaintiff.
- Appearance in court, even without a written statement, may indicate intention to defend and should not be ignored.
Article 227 as a Safeguard Against Mechanical Adjudication
- High Courts will intervene under Article 227 where subordinate courts act mechanically or ignore principles of natural justice.
- This judgment reinforces that procedural rules are tools for justice, not barriers to it.
- Lawyers should routinely invoke Article 227 where trial courts deny defence without considering the gravity of rights involved, especially in property disputes.
Fair Trial Requires More Than Technical Compliance
- The right to be heard is not satisfied by mere notice; it requires a meaningful opportunity to present one’s case.
- Courts must balance procedural compliance with the constitutional imperative of fair trial under Article 21.
- Belated filings should be evaluated on merit, not dismissed summarily.
