FIRM B.R. CONSTRUCTION Vs. MUKESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sec. 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed on behalf of applicant/respondent No. 1, seeking review and recall of the impugned order/judgment dtd. 28/10/2025 (Annexure A-2) passed by this Court.

(2.) The non-applicant/petitioners approached this Court by filing CR-7579-2025, assailing the order dtd. 23/9/2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mahendergarh, whereby the defence of the petitioners was struck off under Sec. 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and further seeking directions for expeditious decision of the pending applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Sec. 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. The said revision petition was, however, disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 28/10/2025 (Annexure A-2), granting the petitioners one opportunity to file reply to the application, subject to payment of costs. The questions arising in respect of the applications preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") and under Sec. 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which were pending consideration in the civil suit, were not adjudicated upon in the revision petition. The learned counsel was advised to confine the scope of the revision petition either exclusively to the proceedings in the civil suit or to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC. Ultimately, the revision petition came to be disposed of solely in relation to the order whereby the defence of the petitioner had been struck off under Sec. 35-B CPC on account of non-payment of costs and failure to file the written statement/reply within the stipulated period.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.1 argued that the defence of the non-applicant/petitioners had already been struck off by the learned Civil Judge under Sec. 35-B CPC, and the said consequence had attained finality. Grant of an opportunity to file reply vide order dtd. 28/10/2025, even subject to costs, has the effect of diluting the statutory consequence flowing from Sec. 35-B CPC. The revision petition was confined to the challenge of the order dtd. 23/9/2022 and directions regarding pending applications, and the relief granted travels beyond the scope of the revision. The applicant does not seek rehearing on merits but prays for a limited review to correct the inadvertent procedural consequence, in order to preserve procedural discipline and prevent prejudice.