3 min readNew DelhiDec 2, 2025 06:29 PM IST
First published on: Dec 2, 2025 at 04:26 PM IST
Punjab Haryana HC ruling: Observing that a litigant who sleeps over his rights for years cannot seek intervention particularly in a discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently pulled up a man for filing the plea in relation to a civil dispute after years of delay.
Justice Deepak Gupta said it was a classic example of gross negligence and said, “In the present case, despite entering appearance in November 2019, the petitioner did not file the written statement even by December 2021. The inaction continued thereafter as well, as the petitioner allowed nearly four years to pass before challenging the order. Such conduct is the classic example of gross negligence and an attempt to delay the proceedings.”
In this case there was a delay of two years in filing the written statement in a civil dispute and a four-year delay in challenging the trial court’s order before the high court.
Case
In 2019, the plaintiff before the trial court instituted a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The petitioner sought time for filing a written statement.
Specific performance of an agreement to sell is a legal remedy where the court directs a party to fulfill their contractual obligations under an agreement to sell.
The trial court, after granting several opportunities, found that the petitioner “persistently failed” to file the written statement for nearly two years and consequently, struck off defence.
The petitioner moved the high court almost 3.9 years after the trial court’s order. The petitioner didn’t seek condonation of delay nor furnished any explanation for the delay.
Arguments, ruling
The petitioner’s counsel, Mukesh Yadav, submitted that the trial court’s order is illegal and that it has deprived the petitioner of his right to defend.
The order noted that the conduct of the petitioner was an attempt to delay the proceedings.
The high court rejected the argument of the petitioner that no prejudice would be caused if an opportunity is given to file the written statement.
The court remarked that the petitioner demonstrated utter disregard for procedural discipline and dismissed the petition.
“The petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of gross delay, laches, and lack of bona fides made out for interference with the well petitioner has demonstrated utter disregard for procedural discipline, and no indulgence is warranted,” the court held.
Punjab and Haryana High Court said the petitioner showed utter disregard for procedural discipline and dismissed the petition. 
Share
