#striking off defence

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that non-payment of costs ordered under Section 35B of the CPC is a valid ground for striking off a defendant’s defence, reinforcing that compliance with cost orders is mandatory, not discretionary. This decision underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for dilatory tactics and ensures procedural discipline in civil litigation.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that striking off a defendant's defence under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC without affording a reasonable opportunity to file a written statement violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21. The Court set aside the trial court's order, emphasizing that procedural rigidity cannot override substantive justice, and directed the petitioner to deposit ₹5,000 as costs for reinstatement of defence.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a defendant’s defence cannot be struck off under CPC Order 9 Rule 7 merely due to procedural irregularities by the court, unless the defendant is at fault. The court restored the defence upon payment of Rs. 20,000 costs, emphasizing that denial of a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that striking off a defendant’s defence for failing to file a written statement violates natural justice unless a reasonable opportunity is granted first. This reinforces that procedural fairness under the CPC is non-negotiable, especially when fundamental rights to defend one’s case are at stake, affecting litigants across civil suits in trial courts.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that striking off a defendant’s defence for non-filing of a written statement without granting a reasonable opportunity violates principles of natural justice. The Court directed the trial court to provide one effective opportunity to file the written statement, emphasizing that procedural fairness must precede drastic remedies under the CPC.