In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. C.R.No.8008 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on 05.4.2011. Sunil Kumar --Petitioner vs. Satya Rani and another --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Gulzar Mohd,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Pankaj Bali,Advocate,for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Khanna, by which the defence of the petitioner has been struck off on the ground that he has not filed the written statement within a period of 90 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the written statement was to be filed on or before 16.10.2010 but the learned Rent Controller struck off the defence of the petitioner on the ground that it has been filed beyond the period of 90 days. Learned counsel also submitted that amendment in Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short, 'CPC') with regard to the filing of written statement within 90 days is directory and not mandatory. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case C.R.No.8008 of 2010 (O&M) -2- of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Ors, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 379, in which it has been held that the provision is directory and not mandatory. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the defence of the petitioner has been rightly struck off by the learned Rent Controller because the written statement was not filed within the stipulated period. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. It is an admitted fact that the Court had granted time to the petitioner to file the written statement on or before 16.10.2010 which has been filed on 16.10.2010 i.e. within the prescribed time. Thus, there was no occasion for the learned Rent Controller to strike off the defence of the petitioner on the ground that the written statement was filed beyond a period of 90 days. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. 05.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge