Civil Revision No. 3047 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3047 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.09.2010 Gurcharan Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Balbir Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Pipat, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 3.3.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ropar, vide which the defence of the petitioners was ordered to be struck off for not having filed the written statement within 90 days as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order reads as under: - “Sh. Sumit Pasricha Adv. has filed power of attorney on behalf of defendant no.8. Further perusal of the file reveals that the RCs for the services of defendants no.5, 7, 9, 13 and 14 have been duly got issued on 05.01.2010 and 12.01.2010 but neither the RC nor any acknowledge has been received back. It further emerges from the record that defendants no.9 to 13 are residing in Maharashtra and accordingly to expedite their services this court is of the firm opinion that substituted mode of services are Civil Revision No. 3047 of 2010 -2- required to adopted. Therefore, let remaining defendants remaining defendants be summoned through substituted mode by way of publication in “Indian Express” for 15.04.2010. Dasti publication notice and necessary charges be deposited at the counter of the office of said news paper. Written statement and reply not filed by defendants no.1, 2, 3, and 4. Perusal of the file shows that the counsel for these defendants had appeared on 24.11.2009 and since then repeated opportunities were provided to these defendants for filing written statement and reply to stay application but in-spite of that they have failed to comply with the provisions contained under Order 8 rule 1 CPC. The statutory period of filing the written statement has already expired. Under these circumstances the defence of the defendants no.1 to 4 stand struck off.” Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that the learned trial Court declined the adjournment to file written statement by treating Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to be mandatory. The order, therefore, could not be sustained in law, as it is well-settled, that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are only directory in nature, and the Court could grant further time to file written statement, on showing of the sufficient cause. Mr. S.K. Pipat, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 contends, that no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out, as the petitioners failed to make out sufficient cause for extension of time, beyond the period of 90 days. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The reading of the impugned order, referred to above, would show that the only reason for rejection of the prayer was, that the learned trial Court took the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be mandatory in nature, as the Civil Revision No. 3047 of 2010 -3- order proceeds on the presumption, that statutory period of 90 days has expired, therefore, the defence was liable to be struck off. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioners are granted one last opportunity to file written statement on the date fixed in the trial i.e. 14.10.2010, subject to payment of costs, as compensation, which are assessed as `5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Revision disposed off. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 22, 2010 R.S.