Litigant Should Not Suffer for Lapse of Counsel: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Defence Struck Off for Delay in Filing Written Statement

“Unamended Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is Directory in Nature—Court Retains Discretion to Condon Delay in Non-Commercial Disputes” - Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a relief-based judgment, setting aside the trial court’s order that had struck off the defence of the petitioner for failing to file a written statement on time.

Justice Sudepti Sharma, invoking a settled line of authority from the Supreme Court, held that the power of the civil courts to condone delay in non-commercial suits survives even after the amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, and litigants should not be penalized for the lapses of their counsel.

“Counsel was engaged in election work; written statement was ready”—Court finds delay not deliberate, condones with cost

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the written statement could not be filed due to preoccupation with municipal elections, as the counsel’s spouse was contesting elections in Ludhiana. It was submitted that the written statement was ready, and the petitioner was prepared to file it on the next date of hearing, i.e., 03.10.2025.

Justice Sharma noted: “A perusal of file shows that it was owing to the lapse on the part of counsel the written statement could not be filed.”

The Court further observed that law is well-settled that a party should not suffer due to acts or omissions of their advocate, relying on Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad, (2010) 1 SCC 391, where the Supreme Court had categorically declared:

“For the wrong or inaction of counsel, the litigant should not suffer.”

“Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory in non-commercial disputes”—Court distinguishes Dr. J.J. Merchant

The trial court had refused to entertain the written statement, holding that the statutory deadline for filing had expired and sufficient opportunities had already been given. The respondents relied on the apex court’s ruling in Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, 2003 (1) BCR 24, advocating strict adherence to timelines.

However, the High Court clarified that: “The judgment in Dr. J.J. Merchant was rendered in the context of the Consumer Protection Act, which specifically provides for expeditious disposal... the ratio is not applicable to the present case.”

In contrast, for non-commercial disputes, the law remains that the timeline under unamended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory. The Court drew strength from Desh Raj v. Balkishan (2020) 2 SCC 708, where the Supreme Court had held:

“The unamended Order 8 Rule 1 CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of courts to condone certain delays.”

“Court retains inherent discretion to secure justice”—Breach of procedural timeline not fatal when justice demands condonation

Justice Sharma further quoted the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587, reinforcing that in non-commercial disputes, courts retain discretion to condone delay, especially when no mala fide intent is apparent.

Summing up the legal position, the High Court held: “In the interest of justice, the petitioner should be granted one last effective opportunity to file the written statement, subject to payment of costs.”

“Striking off defence set aside; last chance granted with costs”—Court allows revision petition

Concluding that the impugned order striking off the defence was harsh and disproportionate, the High Court allowed the civil revision petition, setting aside the trial court’s order dated 16.12.2024 to the extent it struck off the defence.

The Court directed: “The petitioner is granted one last effective opportunity to file written statement on the next date of hearing i.e., 03.10.2025, along with payment of ₹5,000/- as costs.”

The costs were to be deposited in favour of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association, and the trial court was directed to accept the written statement on the next date.

Further, in the event of adjournment on 03.10.2025, one more effective opportunity was to be given.

This judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court serves as an emphatic reminder that procedure is the handmaiden of justice, not its mistress. The decision ensures that litigants are not condemned for the faults of their lawyers, and that judicial discretion continues to serve as a safeguard against procedural rigidity in non-commercial civil suits.

By invoking settled jurisprudence from Desh Raj, Ram Kumar Gupta, and Ashok Kumar, the High Court reaffirmed that delay in filing a written statement—without mala fide—should not result in irreversible procedural punishment, especially when the delay is short, non-prejudicial, and well-explained.

Date of Decision: 26.09.2025