National Highways Authority of India National Highways Authority of India v. Saranjeet Kaur and Others Saranjeet Kaur and Others
Case Details
(O&M) CR-5732-2025 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR-5732-2025 (O&M) CR Decided on :-25.08.2025 Decided on : National Highways Authority of India National Highways Authority of India ....Petitioner VERSUS Saranjeet Kaur and Others Saranjeet Kaur and Others ....Respondents
Legal Reasoning
It is settled law that the merits, after affording due opportunity to contest the same. It is settled law that the merits, after affording due opportunity to contest the same. merits, after affording due opportunity to contest the same. procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. 7. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 05.11.2024 and 21.04.2025 05.11.2024 and 21.04.2025 passed by the learned trial Court passed by the learned trial Court are set petitioner to file nd one effective opportunity is granted to defendant No.1-petitioner to file nd one effective opportunity is granted to defendant aside and one effective opportunity is granted to defendant written statement on or before the date fixed before the learned trial Court written statement on or before the date fixe subject d before the learned trial Court subject TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-5732-2025 (O&M) -3- - to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be paid to the plaintiff to payment of Rs. . It is as costs to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It is s of this order, the ar that failing to file the written statement in terms of this order, the ar that failing to file the written statement in term made clear that failing to file the written statement in term would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and petitioner would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this order having any bearing the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this order having any bearing the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this order having any bearing the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this order having any bearing on trial. 8. 9. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Arguments
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. K.S.Kang , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Kang, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the Trial Court whereby the defence of the 05.11.2024 passed by the Trial Court whereby the defence of the passed by the Trial Court whereby the defence of the petitioner petitioner was struck off for the reason that the defendant-petitioner petitioner was struck off for the reason that the defendant defendant-petitioner was struck off for the reason that the defendant ven after the expiry of 90 days and subsequent failed to file the written statement even after the expiry of 90 days and subsequent ven after the expiry of 90 days and subsequent failed to file the written st order dated 21.04.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling order dated 21.04.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling order dated 21.04.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling order dated 21.04.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dted 05.11.2024. the order dted 05.11.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the defendant Learned counsel for the defendant petitioner would contend that No.1-petitioner would contend that plaintiff-respondent No.1 respondent No.1 – Saranjeet Kaur for permanent preferred a suit for permanent s from interfering into the peaceful possession injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession s from interfering into the peaceful possession injunction restraining the defendant of plaintiff over the suit land and further restraining them from acquisition of the of plaintiff over the suit land and further restraining them from acquisition of the of plaintiff over the suit land and further restraining them from acquisition of the of plaintiff over the suit land and further restraining them from acquisition of the aforesaid land without issuing Notification under Section 3 aforesaid land without D of the issuing Notification under Section 3-A and 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956. It is further contended that National Highways Act, 1956 delay on part of It is further contended that delay on part of defendant No.1- -petitioner is totally inadvertent and non deliberate as petitioner- is totally inadvertent and non-deliberate as petitioner ting of the relevant documents which department was engaged in compiling and sorting of the relevant documents which ting of the relevant documents which department was engaged in compiling and sor are important for adjudication of the present case. However, he submits that if are important for adjudication of the present case. However, he submits that are important for adjudication of the present case. However, he submits that are important for adjudication of the present case. However, he submits that defendant No.1 given one opportunity, he would file the written No.1-petitioner is given one opportunity, he would file the written given one opportunity, he would file the written TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-5732-2025 (O&M) -2- - statement and he is willing to compensate the plaintiff statement and he is willing to compensate the plaintiff-respondent No.1 by way by way of costs. 3. petitioner and I have heard learned counsel for the defendant No.1-petitioner and I have heard learned counsel for the I have heard learned counsel for the gone through the record of the case in hand. gone through the record of the case in hand. 4. The defence of the defendant No.1 The defence of the defendant petitioner in the present case has No.1-petitioner in the present case has been struck-off on the ground that despite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the off on the ground that despite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the despite the period of 90 days having elapsed, the written statement was not filed. written statement was not filed. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) had also examined through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] had also examined through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] the timeline for filing of written statement and laid down that in a non the timeline for filing of wr commercial itten statement and laid down that in a non-commercial dispute matter, the unamended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC continues to be dispute matter, the unamended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC continues to be dispute matter, the unamended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC continues to be dispute matter, the unamended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the Courts to directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the Courts to directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the Courts to directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the Courts to condone delay. 6. view of the settled law that the provision of In view of above and in view of the settled law that the provision of view of the settled law that the provision of In view of above and in commercial suits, is only directory in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, in the case of non-commercial suits, is only directory in commercial suits, is only directory in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, in the case of non I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice nature and not mandatory, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice nature and not mandatory, petitioner would be adequately met if one opportunity is granted to defendant No.1-petitioner would be adequately met if one opportunity is gran would be adequately met if one opportunity is gran for filing written statement on the date to be fixed before the learned trial Court. for filing written statement on the date to be fixed before the learned trial Court. for filing written statement on the date to be fixed before the learned trial Court. for filing written statement on the date to be fixed before the learned trial Court. No prejudice would be caused to the other side in case the suit is decided on No prejudice would be caused to the other side in case the suit is decided on No prejudice would be caused to the other side in case the suit is decided on No prejudice would be caused to the other side in case the suit is decided on
Decision
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. August 25, 2025 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document