Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off Defence for Failure to File Written Statement Despite Repeated Opportunities; Says Procedural Lapses Cannot Be Excused Indefinitely
Case Name: Veena Rani vs. Geeta Devi and Others
Date of Judgment: 02 December 2025
Citation: CR-8840-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order striking off the petitioner’s defence for failing to file a written statement within the permissible time, holding that she had been granted multiple opportunities and shown no justification for continued delay. The Court reiterated that although procedural rules are directory, they cannot be invoked to perpetuate laxity or obstruct justice.
Summary: The dispute arose in a succession petition where the petitioner, arrayed as defendant, was required to file a written statement to the amended pleadings. After the impleadment of additional parties, the Trial Court repeatedly adjourned the matter over several dates between July 2024 and December 2024 specifically to allow the petitioner to file her reply. Despite these opportunities, no written statement was filed.
An application was eventually moved by the respondent seeking striking off of the defence. The petitioner argued before the High Court that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and that, as a widowed litigant, she deserved leniency. The Court rejected these submissions, emphasising that procedural law is meant to aid justice, not to excuse indifference. It noted that the petitioner had not provided any explanation at all for her failure to file the written statement despite repeated adjournments.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd., the Court underscored that valuable judicial time cannot be wasted by granting endless adjournments and that litigants cannot expect indefinite indulgence. It held that the Trial Court had acted within its jurisdiction and that no interference was warranted.
Decision: The revision petition was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the striking off of the petitioner’s defence and declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction in the absence of any procedural or legal infirmity.