CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -1-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA  

     AT CHANDIGARH                          

Reserved   on   :   03.12.2025

Pronounced on : 06.03.2026

          Uploaded on     : 06.03.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is

pronounced or the full Judgment is pronounced:        Full Judgment

1. CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)

SHRI SHRI RAM GUPTA AND OTHERS                   

                 ... PETITIONERS

Versus

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS  

                      ... RESPONDENTS

2. CWP-25611-2022 (O&M)

M/S TRIVENI KNITS PVT. LIMITED AND OTHERS

      ... PETITIONERS

Versus

DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS  

                      ... RESPONDENTS

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTIC E

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY

Present:- Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate (Arguing counsel) with

Mr. Harkirat S. Jagdev, Advocate

for the petitioners (in CWP-26365-2019)

Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate

for the petitioners (in CWP-25611-2022)

Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate (Arguing counsel) with

Ms. Ramneek Kaur Mann, Advocate

for respondent No.3-Bank (in CWP-26365-2019)

Mr. Abhay Karan Khanna, Advocate (Arguing counsel) with 

Mr. N.C. Saini, Advocate

for respondents No.2 and 3-Bank (in CWP-25611-2022)

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -2-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

*****

SANJIV BERRY, J.

1.  Both the aforesaid writ petitions are being taken up for decision in

this single order as the prayer sought for therein is essentially for the quashing of

the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by respondent No.1, Debt Recovery Appellate

Tribunal, Delhi in Misc. Appeal No. 468 of 2018 titled as “M/s Shakti Bhog

Snacks Limited vs. Corporation Bank & Others”   and the consequent orders

passed by DRT-III Chandigarh in both the petitions.

2.           Brief facts of the case,  CWP-26365-2019, in nut shell, are that the

respondent Bank had filed OA No.1332 of 2018 titled as ‘Oriental Bank of

Commerce vs. A.G. Oils Pvt. Ltd. And Others’ under Section 19 of the Recovery

of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RDB Act, 1993’)

seeking the recovery of amount due alongwith interest. Notice was issued on

15.06.2018   to   the   defendants   calling   them   to   appear  on   08.11.2018   vide

Annexure P-2. The petitioners have placed on record the copies of orders passed

by the learned DRT-III, Chandigarh from 08.11.2018 to 07.06.2019 (Annexure

P-3) to plead that on account of non-availability of the Presiding Officer the case

was adjourned from 08.11.2018 to 12.03.2019 and then to 08.05.2019. 

2.1.             On 08.05.2019 the counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.1 to

6 had filed power of attorney while defendant No. 7 to 8 were proceeded against

ex)parte. The Bank was directed to supply copy of paper-book to defendant No.1

to 6 and the case was adjourned to 07.06.2019 for filing of written statement. 

2.2.            The defendants (petitioners herein) prepared the written statement on

17.05.2019 as is apparent from the attestation of the Oath Commissioner for

filing the same on the next date i.e. 07.06.2019, but on 07.06.2019 the learned

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -3-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

Presiding Officer was not available and the case was adjourned to 02.08.2019

and on account of bona fide belief that the written statement is to be filed by the

next date, the petitioners filed the written statement on 01.08.2019 being prior to

the next date of hearing i.e. 02.08.2019. It is pleaded that, had the case been

taken up on 07.06.2019 the petitioner could have filed the written statement on

that date itself, however it was on account of the Presiding Officer having gone

to attend the duties of DRT, Jaipur on that day, the matter was adjourned to

02.08.2019.

2.3. On 02.08.2019 the learned Presiding Officer however, refused to

take the written statement on record and struck off the defense of the petitioners

by passing the impugned order 02.08.2019 (Annexure P-5) and adjourned the

case to 28.08.2019 for passing final orders in terms of the order dated 24.07.2019

(Annexure P-7) passed by learned DRAT, Delhi, duly circulated to all the DRTs

for passing of the judgment/order straightway once defendants were proceeded

ex)parte on their defense is struck off. Thereafter, on 28.08.2019, the impugned

order (Annexure P-6) was passed.

3.        Brief facts pleaded in CWP-25611-2022 are that the respondent Bank

had filed OA No.2633-2018 for recovery of its alleged dues along with interest.

Vide order dated 05.11.2018 (Annexure P-5) learned DRT-III, Chandigarh issued

notice for 03.04.2019 and on 03.04.2019 (Annexure P-6) fresh notice was

directed to be issued for 06.08.2019 (copy of notice dated 05.04.2019 Annexure

P-7). Pursuant to the receipt of notice, the petitioners engaged Mr. Akashdeep

Miglani, Advocate to represent and defend them. 

3.1.       On 06.08.2019 the case was listed before learned DRT-III, Chandigarh at

serial No.37 and when their counsel entered the Court room at 10:32 am the

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -4-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

matter at serial No. 39 had already been taken and the counsel was astonished to

know that petitioners were proceeded against ex)parte to which he requested to

learned Presiding Officer, who told him that his request would be heard after

taking all the cases. The learned Presiding Officer after proceeding  ex)parte

against the petitioner  had  fixed the case for 14.11.2019 for passing of the

judgment, in terms of the judgment of DRAT Delhi vide impugned order dated

24.07.2019 whereby it was directed to all DRTs that the DRTs should not adjourn

the case once the defense is struck off and straightway allow the OAs to achieve

the main objective of the Act for speedy disposal of the case.  

3.2.  The counsel for the petitioner filed application (Annexure P-2)

along with affidavit seeking recall of the order dated 06.08.2019 on which the

reply of the Bank was called and the case was adjourned to 24.03.2020   vide

order dated 01.11.2019 (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, the functioning of the DRT

was closed due to Covid-19 and the matter was adjourned to different dates and

ultimately on 23.05.2022, the application was dismissed and the case  was

adjourned to 03.03.2023 for  ex)parte  arguments. The impugned order dated

23.05.2022 is Annexure P-1.

4.              A conjoint perusal of both the petitions would reveal that the

petitioners have  essentially assailed  the order  dated  24.07.2019  passed by

learned DRAT, Delhi. 

5.   It   is  inter alia contended  by  learned   counsel  representing  the

petitioners that the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 passed by learned DRAT,

Delhi is in complete contravention to the provisions of law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and is liable to be set-aside. They had referred

to the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in  C.N.Ram    ap   pa Gowda v.   

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -5-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

C.C.Chandrego    w  da, (2012) 5 SCC 265     wherein it has been held that even if the

defendant had not filed written statement, a decree cannot be passed without

calling upon the plaintiffs to prove its own case. They contend that a bare perusal

of provisions contained in RDB, Act 1993 would reveal that as per Section 19(5)

(A) it is mandatory for Tribunal to fix the date for hearing for admission or

denial of the documents produced by the parties, before proceeding under

Section 19(5)(B) which is not been followed by the Tribunal. They contend that

the provisions contained in Section 19(5) for filing of the written statement is

pari meteria to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of

India, 2005 (3) RCR (Civil) 530, that order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory and not

mandatory in nature and in the given case, the Court has discretion to  allow the

defendant   to   file   the   written   statement,   even   after  expiry   of   90   days   in

exceptional hard cases. 

6.  It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners in CWP-

26365-2019, that the petitioners had filed the written statement on 01.08.2019

even  before the date fixed  i.e  02.08.2019 for  that purpose,  therefore,  the

impugned order Annexure P-5 passed by DRT-III, Chandigarh whereby their

defense had been struck off, is totally unsustainable and unwarranted in the eyes

of law. 

6.1 Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP-25611-2022

contended  that   the   petitioners   were   proceeded   against  ex)parte  totally   in

violation of principles of natural justice as the concerned DRT started working at

10:30 am and at about 10:32 am their counsel entered the Court room, the

learned Presiding Officer had already proceeded ex)parte against them in the OA

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -6-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

listed at serial No. 37 in the cause-list. He submits that  the action of learned

DRT in proceeding ex)parte against the petitioners within two minutes of starting

the proceedings while their case was fixed at serial No.37 in the cause-list and

especially in spite of the presence of their counsel to submit the power of

attorney, is blatantly arbitrary, unjust and liable to be set-aside, based on the

arbitrary directions given by learned DRAT Delhi in the impugned judgment

dated 24.07.2019, as is evident from the perusal of the order dated 06.08.2019

(Annexure P-3) passed by DRT-III, Chandigarh. 

6.2          On the strength of above said arguments the learned counsel for the

petitioners have prayed for setting-aside of the impugned orders. 

7. Per contra, the learned counsels for the respondent-Bank have assailed

these arguments and submitted that the petitions are without any basis and

deserve to be dismissed. They contend that there is specific remedy available

under Section 20 of the Act in the form of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for

the petitioners to seek redressal of their grievance qua the impugned orders

passed by the respective DRTs which they have not availed. They have referred

to Order 8 Rule 10 CPC to submit that it empowers a Court to pronounce the

judgment against the defendants or pass any appropriate order if they failed to

submit the written statement within the prescribed time and the impugned orders

therefore, do not suffer from any infirmity. They submitted that the present

petitions are without any merit, and hence deserve no interference. 

8.   After   considering   the   rival   contentions   and   going   through   the

record, it is observed that so far as the factual position is concerned, there is no

dispute qua the same in the light of the copies of the orders passed by the

respective DRTs having been placed on record by the petitioners. 

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -7-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

8.1.  It is not disputed that in CWP-26365-2019, while dealing with the

OA No. 1332-2018 it was ordered as under by DRT on 08.05.2019:-

“Bank has filed service report and as per service report, Sh.

Namit Gautam, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant No.1

to 6 and filed POA. No one appeared on behalf of defendant

No.7 and 8, therefore, they are proceeded against ex)parte. Bank

is directed to supply paper book to defendant No.1 to 6 today for

filing WS on the next date.

The case is fixed for next date 07.06.2019.

8.2. Then on 07.06.2019, DRT-III Chandigarh had passed following

order:-

“Hon’ble Presiding Officer is on official duty for holding

charge of DRT, Jaipur.

The case is fixed for next date 02.08.2019.”

8.3.  The written statement on behalf of petitioners (Annexure P-4) was

filed on 01.08.2019 i.e. before 02.08.2019, the date already fixed. 

8.4.  Thereafter,   the   DRT,   Chandigarh   proceeded   to   pass   the   order

(Annexure P-5) dated 02.08.2019, which reads as under:-

“Defendant Nos. 1 to 8 were directed to file written

statement on or before 07.06.2019 but they have filed written

statement on 01.08.2019 as per order dated 08.05.2019.

Therefore, written statement filed by defendants after this date

cannot be taken on record and right to file written statement

deemed to be closed on 07.06.2019 and defense of defendant

Nos. 1 to 8 is struck off.

Since, the defense of defendant Nos.1 to 8 has already

been struck off and right to file written statement has already

been closed so there is no necessity to call the original

documents to be compared as the affidavit of evidence has been

filed along with the OA.

                 Hon’ble DRAT Delhi has given directions in its

judgment in Miscellaneous Appeal No.468/18 arising out of

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -8-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

OA, No. 385/17 pending in DRT-3 Delhi in ‘M/s Shakti Bhog

Snacks Limited Vs. Corporation Bank and others’ that DRT

should not adjourn the case once defense is struck off and should

straight)away allow the OA to achieve the main objective of the

act for speedy disposal of the cases.

In its judgment Hon’ble DRAT, Delhi has given

observations that when defense is struck off the evidence

adduced by the bank at the time of filing OA is with affidavit of

evidence and the same should be considered and should not

adjourn the case for adducing evidence which unnecessarily

delays the disposal of the cases. This Tribunal is bound to follow

the directions given by Hon’ble Chairperson DRAT Delhi.

Therefore, in the light of above)mentioned observations

since, the defense of defendants has already been struck off.

This OA is fixed for judgment.

List on 24.08.2019.”

Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure P-6)

was passed allowing the Original Application. 

9.  So far as CWP-25611-2022 is concerned, the fact as emerges from

the record is that OA No. 2633-2018 was filed by the respondent Bank before the

DRT-III, Chandigarh and vide order (Annexure P-6) dated 03.04.2019 following

order was passed:-

“ Present:) Sh. Veerbhan Adv., for Bank.

Fresh Notices be issued. Let the notices be issued to

all the defendants. Defendants be served notices by way of

electronic mode as well as by personal service and registered

post. If defendants are served personally, then bank is directed to

bring all the original documents on next date. The concerned

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -9-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

clerk is directed to issue notices within three days from the date

of this order.

The case is fixed for service report on next date 06.08.2019.”

9.1. Thereafter, on 06.08.2019, the impugned order (Annexure P-3) was

passed which reads as under:-

“ITEM NO.37

ΟΑ 2633/18 PNB vs TRIVENI KNITS

06.08.2019

Present: Shri Veer Bhan Advocate for Applicant

None for the defendants.

No one has appeared on behalf of de fendants

despite effective service. Therefore, all defendants are proceeded

ex parte. Since, no one has appeared to controvert or to rebut the

claim of applicant bank and as the OA has been filed along the

affidavit of evidence, there is no necessity to call the original

documents to be compared.

                Hon'ble DRAT Delhi has given directions in its

judgment in Miscellaneous Appeal No.468/18 arising out of

OA, No.385/17 pending in DRT-3 Delhi in ‘M/s Shakti Bhog

Snacks Limited Vs Corporation Bank and Others’ (date of

judgment 24.07.2019) that DRT should not adjourn the case

once defense is struck off and should straight)away allow the OA

to achieve the main objective of the act for speedy disposal of the

cases.

In its judgment Hon'ble DRAT Delhi has given

observations that when defense is struck off the evidence

adduced by the bank at the time of filing OA is with affidavit of

evidence and the same should be considered and should not

adjourn the case for adducing evidence which unnecessarily

delays the disposal of the cases. This Tribunal is bound to follow

the directions given by Hon'ble Chairperson DRAT Delhi.

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -10-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

"Since, the defendants are ex parte clearly goes to show

that the evidence as filed by the bank in their claim is unrebutted.

Therefore, there is no need to call the original documents from

the bank".

Therefore, in the light of above)mentioned observations

since, the defendants are ex parte, this case is fixed for judgment.

List on 14.11.2019.

(Sd/))

Presiding Officer DRT)III, Chandigarh

After pronouncement of order, Shri Akashdeep Advocate for

defendants appeared. He has filed memo of appearance on

behalf of all defendants and has been apprised about the above

order”

9.2.  Thereafter, an application (Annexure P-2) for recalling of the order

dated 06.08.2019 was filed by the petitioner vide IA NO. 718-2019 which too

was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P-1).

 9.3.  Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the CWP-25611-2022

wherein vide order dated 11.11.2022, this Court taking cognizance stayed all the

further   proceedings   in   the   OA  No.2633/2018   pending  before   the   DRT-III

Chandigarh. 

10.  It is pertinent to mention here that in both the writ petitions the

proceedings carried out by learned Presiding Officers of the DRT, Chandigarh

which have been impugned by the petitioners, is primarily based on the order

dated 24.07.2019 passed by DRAT Delhi in Misc. Appeal No. 468 of 2018 titled

as ‘M/s Shakti Bhog Snacks Limited vs. Corporation Bank & Others’. Although

none of the parties in the present writ petitions happens to be party in the

aforesaid appeal pending before the DRAT, Delhi but on account of the copy of

the order having been circulated to all the DRTs under the jurisdiction of DRAT

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -11-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

Delhi, the learned Presiding Officers passed the impugned orders based on said

order. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 passed by

the DRAT Delhi is reproduced as under:-

“                 xxxxxxxx

Before winding up, this Tribunal once again would like

to mention here, as had been observed on an earlier occasion

also while dealing with an appeal arising out of an order passed

by one DRT striking off the defence of the concerned

borrower/defendant, that even when defence of defendants is

struck off by the DRTs, still the O.As keep on lingering for years.

Some time is consumed for filing of evidence by the banks and

some time is consumed before the Registrars on the pretext of

'exhibition of documents'. In that process, years get consumed

and in that process the very purpose of enactment of the

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,

1993, which is speedy disposal of Bank recovery cases and

expeditious recovery of 'public monies' gets frustrated. When a

defendant does not file written statement and his defence is

struck off, he conveys to the Tribunal that he has no opposition to

the claim of the bank. So, in a way the entire claim of the Banks

stands admitted.

DRTs should appreciate that when defence is struck off

the averments made in the OAs get admitted and Section 19(5B)

of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 mandates that when the claim of the

Bank is admitted, in full or in part, by a defendant the DRT

SHALL direct that defendant to pay the admitted amount within

thirty days.

As far as the procedure being adopted by the DRTs for

giving time to the banks as well as defendants for adducing

evidence and exhibition of documents is concerned, this Tribunal

feels that in view of the existing provision under Section 19(10B)

of the Act of 1993, banks as well as defendants are supposed to

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -12-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

file evidence by way of affidavits alongwith the O.A. by banks

and along with written statements by defendants. The objective is

to save unnecessary time which otherwise gets consumed for

completion of evidence and thereby delays are caused in the final

disposal of bank recovery cases which even otherwise are to be

finally disposed of within 180 days as provided under Section

19(24) of RDDBFI Act, 1993. It is seen that in almost every case

the banks make reference to all the loan documents in their O.As

and make them as annexures to the O.As. The O.As are duly

verified also and are supported by affidavits also, which means

the documents which the banks annex with the O.As become part

of the O.As itself and normally there should not be any problem

in accepting those documents straightaway as part of evidence

and particularly in cases where defence of defendants stands

struck off, which procedure, if adopted, will go a long way to cut

short the period of disposal of the O.As in which crores of public

monies are involved. This will also ensure that the Banks do not

get any undue special treatment for filing of documents and

adducing evidence. The DRTs must apply Section 19(10B)

equally for the banks as well as the borrowers)defendants. It is

hoped that whenever a situation arises when defence of

defendants is to be struck off and even otherwise also the learned

Presiding Officers will keep in mind the aforesaid observations

in order to achieve the objective for which DRTS have been

established.

This appeal with the aforesaid observations is

dismissed.

Copy of this order be circulated amongst all the DRTs

under the jurisdiction of this DRAT.

(CHAIRPERSON)”

11.  Before proceeding further, it would be apt to have a glance on the

relevant provisions contained in RDB Act, 1993 as well as Code of Civil

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -13-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

Procedure   in   the   context   of   filing   of   the   written   statement.  The   relevant

provisions of Section 19(5) of the RDB Act 1993 reads as under:-

“ Section 19(5)- Recovery of Debts and bankruptcy Act, 1993

 (5)   (i) the defendant shall within a period of thirty days from

the date of service of summons, present a written statement of his

defence including claim for set)off under sub)section (6) or

a counter)claim under sub)section (8), if any, and such written

statement shall be accompanied with original documents or true

copies thereof with the leave of the Tribunal, relied on by the

defendant in his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the

written statement within the said period of thirty days, the

Presiding Officer may, in exceptional cases and in special

circumstances to be recorded in writing, extend the said period

by such further period not exceeding fifteen days to file the

written statement of his defence;

(ii) where the defendant makes a disclosure of any property or

asset pursuant to orders passed by the Tribunal, the provisions of

sub)section (4A) of this section shall apply to such property or

asset;

(iii) in case of non)compliance of any order made under clause

(ii) of sub)section (4), the Presiding Officer may, by an order,

direct that the person or officer who is in default, be detained in

civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless in the

meantime the Presiding Officer directs his release:

Provided that the Presiding Officer shall not pass an

order under this clause without giving an opportunity of being

heard to such person or officer.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, the expression

‘officer who is in default’ shall mean such officer as defined in

clause (60) of  section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013).

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -14-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

(5A) On receipt of the written statement of defendant or on

expiry of time granted by the Tribunal to file the written

statement, the Tribunal shall fix a date of hearing for admission

or denial of documents produced by the parties to the

proceedings and also for continuation or vacation of the interim

order passed under sub)section (4).

(5B) Where a defendant makes an admission of the full or

part of the amount of debt due to a bank or financial institution,

the Tribunal shall order such defendant to pay the amount, to the

extent of the admission within a period of thirty days from the

date of such order failing which the Tribunal may issue a

certificate in accordance with the provisions of sub)section (22)

to the extent of the amount of debt due admitted by the

defendant.”

11.1.1.      Corresponding Provisions contained under Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of

Civil Procedure reads as under:-

“ORDER 8 RULE 1 – CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

[Written Statement, Set)Off And Counter)Claim]

1. Written statement. – The defendant shall, within thirty days

from the date of service of summons on him, present a written

statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written

statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be

allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified

by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which

shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of

summons.”

12.          Considering the factual position of the present petitions emanating from

the passing of the impugned orders, in the light of the procedure laid down in the

relevant provisions of RDB Act, 1993, there is no doubt that as per Section

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -15-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

19(5), the written statement may be filed within 30 days and such period can be

extended not beyond another 15 days for filing of the written statement while as

per Order 8 Rule1 CPC, such period of 30 days can be extended up to 90 days

from the date of service of summons. The provisions contained in Section 19(5)

of RDB, Act 1993 is pari materia to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC.  The question arises as

to whether  such period so specified therein for filing of the written statement is

mandatory or directory in nature, the answer thereto can be fetched from the

landmark judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Salem Advocate Bar

Association’s case (supra), wherein it has been held that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is

directory and not mandatory in nature and the Court has discretion to allow the

defendant   to   file   the   written   statement   even   after  expiry   of   90   days   in

exceptionally hard cases. The relevant portion of the judgment Salem Advocate

Bar Association’s case (supra) is reproduced here as under:-

“22. In construing this provision, support can also be had from

Order 8 Rule 10 which provides that where any party from whom

a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails to

present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court,

the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such

other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. On failure to file

written statement under this provision, the Court has been given

the discretion either to pronounce judgment against the

defendant or make such other order in relation to suit as it thinks

fit. In the context of the provision, despite use of the word 'shall',

the court has been given the discretion to pronounce or not to

pronounce the judgment against the defendant even if written

statement is not filed and instead pass such order as it may think

fit in relation to the suit. In construing the provision of Order 8

Rule 1 and Rule 10, the doctrine of harmonious construction is

required to be applied. The effect would be that under Rule 10

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -16-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

Order 8, the court in its discretion would have power to allow the

defendant to file written statement even after expiry of period of

90 days provided in Order 8 Rule 1. There is no restriction in

Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time

cannot be granted. The Court has wide power to 'make such

order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit'. Clearly, therefore, the

provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for upper limit of 90 days

to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to

make it clear that the order extending time to file written

statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended

only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to

be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time

limit of 90 days. The discretion of the Court to extend the time

shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify

the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1.”

13.   Further, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Modula

India vs. Kamakhya Singh Deo 1988(4) SCC 619,  that on the failure of the

defendant to file the written statement, leading to defence having been struck off,

it is not mandatory for the Court to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiff

straightway on non-filing of the written statement and the Court has to exercise

discretion as to what further proceedings should take place based on the facts of

a particular case. 

14.        Further in Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court observed as under:-

“ 46. (iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing

the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is to expedite

and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a

disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the

power of the court to extend the time. Though the language of the

proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is couched in negative form, it

does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non)

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -17-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

compliance. The provision being in the domain of the procedural

law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of

the court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond

the time schedule provided by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not

completely taken away.”

15.       The issue as to whether the trial Court before whom the defendant

failed to file the written statement, could straightaway pass the decree in favour

of the plaintiff without entering into the merits of his case and without directing

the plaintiff to lead the evidence in support of his case and appreciating any

evidence or in spite of absence of written statement, the trial Court ought to try

the suit critically appreciating the merits of plaintiffs case directing the plaintiff

to adduce evidence in support of his case examining the weight of evidence so

lead by the plaintiff. 

16. Further, this aspect again came up for consideration before Hon’ble

Supreme Court in  C.N.Ramappa Gowda’s case (supra), the relevant portion

reads as under:- 

“23. In the light of the ratio decidendi of the cases cited

hereinabove, when we examined the judgement and order of the

trial court granting a decree of partition in favour of the

plaintiff)appellant, we could notice that the plaintiff)appellant

has sought to prove his case that the suit property was a joint

family property only on the strength of affidavit which he had

filed and has failed to lead any oral or documentary evidence to

establish that the property was joint in nature. Even if the case of

the plaintiff)appellant was correct, it was of vital importance for

the trial court to scrutinize the plaintiff’s case by directing him to

lead some documentary evidence worthy of credence that the

property sought to be partitioned was joint in nature. But the

trial court seems to have relied upon the case of the plaintiff

merely placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the plaintiff

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -18-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

which was fit to be tested on at least a shred of some

documentary evidence even if it were by way of an ex)parte

assertion.

24. Reliance placed on the affidavit in a blindfold manner by

the trial court merely on the ground that the defendant had failed

to file written statement would amount to punitive treatment of

the suit and the resultant decree would amount to decree which

would be nothing short of a decree which is penal in nature.

25. We find sufficient assistance from the apt observations of

this Court extracted hereinabove which has held that the effect of

non)filing of the written statement and proceeding to try the suit

is clearly to expedite the disposal of the suit and is not penal in

nature wherein the defendant has to be penalised for non filing of

the written statement by trying the suit in a mechanical manner

by passing a decree. We wish to reiterate that in a case where

written statement has not been filed, the Court should be a little

more cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and

before passing a judgement, it must ensure that even if the facts

set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a

judgement and decree could not possibly be passed without

requiring him to prove the fact pleaded in the plaint.

26. It is only when the Court for recorded reasons is fully

satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved at the

instance of the plaintiff in view of the deemed admission by the

defendant, the Court can conveniently pass a judgement and

decree against the defendant who has not filed the written

statement. But, if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed

questions of fact involved in the case arising from the plaint itself

giving rise to two versions, it would not be safe for the Court to

record an ex)parte judgement without directing the plaintiff to

prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. In that

event, the ex)parte judgement although may appear to have

decided the suit expeditiously, it ultimately gives rise to several

layers of appeal after appeal which ultimately compounds the

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -19-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

delay in finally disposing of the suit giving rise to multiplicity of

proceeding which hardly promotes the cause of speedy trial.

27. However, if the Court is clearly of the view that the

plaintiff’s case even without any evidence is prima facie

unimpeachable and the defendant’s approach is clearly a

dilatory tactic to delay the passing of a decree, it would be

justified in appropriate cases to pass even an uncontested decree.

What would be the nature of such a case ultimately will have to

be left to the wisdom and just exercise of discretion by the trial

court who is seized of the trial of the suit.

28. When we examined the instant matter on the anvil of what

has been stated above, we have noticed that the trial court has

decreed the suit without assigning any reason how the plaintiff is

entitled for half share in the property. The same is absolutely

cryptic in nature wherein the trial court has not critically

examined as to how the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support

of his plea of jointness of the family was proved on relying upon

Ex.P)1 to P)10 without even discussing the nature of the

document indicating that the suit property was a joint property.

Ex.P)1 to P)10 are the preliminary records viz. Atlas, Tipni Book,

R.R. Pakka Book, Settlement Akarband, sale deeds etc. The trial

court although relied upon these documents, it has not

elaborated critically as to why these documents have been

believed without indicating as to how it proves the plea that the

property always remained joint in nature and had never been

partitioned between the parties. Even if the trial court relied

upon these documents to infer that the property was joint in

nature, it failed to record any reason as to whether the property

was never partitioned among the coparceners.

29. It is a well acknowledged legal dictum that assertion is no

proof and hence, the burden lay on the plaintiff to prove that the

property had not been partitioned in the past even if there was no

written statement to the contrary or any evidence of rebuttal. The

trial court in our view clearly adopted an erroneous approach by

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -20-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

inferring that merely because there was no evidence of denial or

rebuttal, the plaintiff’s case could be held to have been proved.

The trial court, therefore, while accepting the plea of the

plaintiff)appellant ought to have recorded reasons even if it were

based on ex)parte evidence that the plaintiff had succeeded in

proving the jointness of the suit property on the basis of which a

decree of partition could be passed in his favour”

17.          Thus, from the above, it transpires that it is settled preposition of law as

has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that even

in case of non-filing of written statement, the Court should proceed cautiously by

exercising its discretion in a just manner. The burden of proof would always

remain on plaintiff and his mere assertion in plaint or affidavit would not be

sufficient to discharge the burden, if the plaint indicated some disputed question

of fact, then Court should require the plaintiff to lead the evidence, then on

independent examination thereof, it should pass judgment and decree. It has been

observed   in  C.N.Ramappa   Gowda’s   case   (supra)  that   passing   of   any

uncontested   judgment   in   case   of   failure   to   file   written   statement   by   the

defendant, when it is evident that some disputed facts are involved, has been

depreciated by observing that although such decree may appear to decide suit

expeditiously but ultimately such decree compounds delay in final disposal of

suit, in view of multiplicity of proceedings. 

18.            The view expressed by Ld. DRAT Delhi in the impugned order dated

24.07.2019 shows that emphasis has been on the expeditious disposal of the

proceedings and to cut short the period of disposal of the Original applications

but such approach of allowing the OA (Original Application) straightway to

achieve the objective of  speedy disposal certainly is causing violation of the

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -21-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

principles of natural justice besides leading to multiplicity of the proceedings as

is evident from the peculiar facts and circumstances of the  instant case, wherein

one case, despite the written statement having been filed before the date fixed,

the defense was struck off and concerned DRT adjourned the case  for passing of

the final order while in the other case despite the case being at serial No.37 of the

cause list, within 2 minutes of starting of proceedings, the Presiding Officer

passed the order proceeding against the defendant petitioners  ex)parte  and

straightaway   adjourned  the   case   for   passing   of  the  final   order,  ultimately

resulting in passing of award/decree in mechanical manner without even calling

for the applicant Banks to prove their own case on merits. Such orders were

passed by the concerned Presiding Officers of the respective DRTs basing

reliance   on   the   directions   so   circulated   vide   the   impugned   order   dated

24.07.2019,  passed by the Ld. DRAT, Delhi, which in the circumstances of the

case appears to be against the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in the catena of judgments referred to above besides

being violative of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order

passed by Ld. DRAT, Delhi dated 24.07.2019 is held liable to be quashed by

issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.

19.                 So far as the arguments of the respondent Bank regarding

maintainability  and entertainability of the instant petitions despite availability of

alternative remedy of appeal under Section 20 of RDB Act 1993, is concerned, in

the facts and circumstances we find no merit in this contention because it is

settled   preposition   by   now   that   a   writ   petition   under  Article   226   of   the

Constitution of India can be entertained despite an alternative remedy if there is

violation of fundamental rights, breach of principles of natural justice or the

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -22-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

order is without jurisdiction. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment

rendered   by   the   Hon’ble  Apex   Court   in   case,  Whirlpool      C  orporation   v.   

Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, 1998(8) SCC 1, wherein it has been

observed   that   while   dealing   with   the   question   of   alternative   remedy   qua

entertainment of writ petition  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

normally the High Court would not exercise its writ jurisdiction where there is

an effective and efficacious remedy available but alternative remedy would not

be a bar in at least three contingencies namely:-

i. Where writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of

the Fundamental Rights. 

ii. Where there has been a violation of the principles of natural

justice.

iii. Where the order of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction

or the vires of an Act is challenged.”

19.1.        This apart, plain reading of the provisions contained in 19(5A) of RDB

Act, 1993 would reveal that on receipt of written statement of the defendant or

on expiry of the time granted by the Tribunal to file the written statement,

the Tribunal shall fix a date of hearing for admission or denial of documents

produced by the parties to the proceedings.

19.2.       However, in the present case, the learned Tribunal on the basis of the

order passed by Ld. DRAT, Delhi dated 24.07.2019, after proceeding ex)parte

against the petitioners straightway adjourned the case for the pronouncement of

the final order in utter disregard and violation to the mandatory provision

contained in Section 19(5A) of the RDB Act, 1993.

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -23-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

19.3     Since, the provisions contained in Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993

read in consonance with Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is by now settled to be directory in

nature and not mandatory one, therefore, the action of Presiding Officer DRT-III,

Chandigarh in striking off the defense at 10:32 am in OA No.2633-2018 titled as

‘Punjab National Bank vs. Triveni Knits Pvt. Ltd’  and not accepting the written

statement already filed  before the date fixed in OA No.1332 of 2018 titled as

‘Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. A.G. Oils Pvt. Ltd. And Others’, being the result

of hyper-technical approach/ haste, is held unsustainable in the eyes of law.

20. As a result of the above discussion, the  impugned orders dated

02.08.2019 (Annexure P-5), dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure P-6)   passed in OA

No.1332 of 2018 titled as ‘Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. A.G. Oils Pvt. Ltd.

And Others’, and orders dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure P-3) and dated 23.05.2022

(Annexure P-1) in OA No.2633-2018 titled as ‘Punjab National Bank vs. Triveni

Knits Pvt. Ltd.’     and also the order  dated 24.07.2019 passed by Ld. DRAT,

Delhi in Misc. Appeal No. 468 of 2018 titled as  “M/s Shakti Bhog Snacks

Limited vs. Corporation Bank & Others” are found to be not sustainable in the

eyes of law and are hence liable to be set-aside.

21.            In the light of the above discussion  both the writ petitions are hereby

disposed of by issuing  writ of certiorari, thereby quashing the impugned orders

dated 24.07.2019 passed by Ld. DRAT, Delhi in Misc. Appeal No. 468 of 2018

titled as “M/s Shakti Bhog Snacks Limited vs. Corporation Bank & Others” and

also  quashing   the   impugned  orders   dated   02.08.2019  (Annexure   P-5)   and

28.08.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed in  OA No.1332 of 2018 titled as ‘Oriental

Bank of Commerce vs. A.G. Oils Pvt. Ltd. And Others’ (in CWP-26365-2019),

and   impugned   orders  dated  06.08.2019   (Annexure   P-3)  and  23.05.2022

CWP-26365-2019 (O&M)                         -24-     

CWP-25611-2022(O&M)           

(Annexure P-1) passed in OA No.2633-2018 titled as ‘Punjab National Bank vs.

Triveni Knits Pvt. Ltd’(in CWP-25611-2022).   

22.                 Consequently, by setting aside the aforesaid impugned orders, the

aforementioned Original Applications no. 1332 of 2018 and 2633-2018 are

hereby remanded back to the DRT-III, Chandigarh with the directions to allow

the   petitioners   to   file   their   written   statements   to  the   respective   Original

Applications for which  the concerned DRT will give 15 days time as last and

final opportunity for that purpose and thereafter to proceed further in the

Original Applications after following the mandatory provisions contained in

Section 19(5A) of RDB Act, 1993, in accordance with law. 

23.           Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in above terms. 

24.           Pending application(s) if any shall also stand disposed of. 

(SANJIV BERRY)             (SHEEL NAGU)

        JUDGE                        CHIEF JUSTICE

Dated: 06.03.2026       

Gyan i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No