The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that striking off a defendant’s defence in a civil suit without affording a reasonable opportunity to file a written statement violates the fundamental right to fair hearing. This judgment underscores that procedural fairness must prevail over technical non-compliance, especially when substantial property rights are at stake.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession based on an agreement to sell dated 19.12.2023 against the petitioner-defendant. The suit sought specific performance of the agreement. The petitioner, despite being aware of the proceedings, did not file a written statement or a reply to the stay application filed by the plaintiff.
Key Facts
- The suit was instituted by the respondent on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 19.12.2023
- The petitioner first appeared before the trial court on 21.05.2025
- No written statement was filed by the petitioner prior to 09.02.2026
- The respondent filed a stay application seeking injunction against the petitioner’s possession of the property
- The petitioner did not file a reply to the stay application
- The trial court, by order dated 09.02.2026, struck off the petitioner’s defence for non-filing of the written statement and reply to the stay application
- The petitioner had not received any formal notice or direction from the court to file the written statement within a stipulated time
Procedural History
- 19.12.2023: Agreement to sell executed between parties
- 21.05.2025: Petitioner first appeared before the trial court
- 09.02.2026: Trial Court struck off petitioner’s defence for non-filing of written statement and reply to stay application
- 19.03.2026: 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 09.02.2026, restoration of his right to file a written statement and reply to the stay application, and a direction to the trial court to grant one effective opportunity to comply with procedural requirements.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a civil court may strike off the defence of a defendant under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure without first providing a reasonable opportunity to file a written statement and reply to an interim application.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner was never given a formal notice or deadline to file the written statement. The absence of such notice rendered the trial court’s order arbitrary and violative of natural justice. Reliance was placed on the principle that procedural rigour must not override substantive justice, especially when rights to property are involved. The petitioner had appeared in court and expressed willingness to file the written statement, which was ignored.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any written submission. The court dispensed with notice to the respondent, noting that issuance of notice would cause unnecessary delay and expense without altering the outcome.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that the power to strike off a defence under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is an extreme remedy, to be exercised only after affording a fair opportunity to the defendant. The trial court’s order was passed without any indication that the petitioner had been given a chance to explain his delay or to file the required documents.
"The right to be heard is a cardinal principle of natural justice, and it cannot be sacrificed on the altar of procedural technicalities."
The Court noted that the petitioner had appeared before the court on 21.05.2025, indicating his intention to contest the suit. The failure to file the written statement was not due to wilful neglect but due to lack of direction from the court. The Court further observed that the trial court’s records showed clerical errors - orders dated 09.05.2025 and 21.05.2025 were uploaded as ‘blank’ on the portal, suggesting systemic neglect rather than deliberate non-compliance by the petitioner.
The Court held that the striking off of defence at such an early stage, without any inquiry into the reasons for delay or opportunity to cure the defect, amounted to a denial of fair trial. The remedy under Order VIII Rule 10 is not automatic; it requires judicial discretion guided by the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 09.02.2026, striking off the petitioner’s defence, was set aside. The petitioner was granted one effective opportunity to file the written statement and reply to the stay application before the trial court, upon production of proof of deposit of costs of ₹5,000/- with the District Legal Services Authority, Kurukshetra. The trial court was directed to rectify the clerical errors in its portal records. All other terms of the trial court’s order remained intact.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fair Hearing Precedes Procedural Sanctions
- Practitioners must argue that striking off defence under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC requires prior notice and opportunity to cure defect
- Courts cannot rely on mechanical application of rules when the defendant has shown willingness to participate
- The burden is on the court to ensure compliance is achieved through guidance, not punishment
Clerical Errors Cannot Justify Denial of Rights
- Technical glitches in court portals do not absolve courts of their duty to ensure due process
- Judges must proactively verify records and correct errors that may prejudice litigants
- Systemic inefficiencies cannot be used as justification for denying substantive rights
Cost as a Procedural Safeguard
- The imposition of ₹5,000 as costs is a calibrated remedy - punitive enough to discourage delay, but not so severe as to deny access to justice
- Courts may impose nominal costs to balance procedural fairness with accountability
- Such costs should be directed to legal aid bodies to reinforce public interest objectives
