C.R. No. 159 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 159 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 14, 2009 Mrs. Ruchi .. Petitioner v. Suman Wahi .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 6.12.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non-filing of written statement by the petitioner, her defence was struck off. For the view I am taking, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice of motion to the respondents as the same would not only delay the disposal of the present petition but even delay the disposal of the claim petition before the learned court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that written statement could not be filed on the date fixed for the reason that all the papers were to be collected. He further submitted that no effective proceedings have taken place after the passing of the impugned order as the case is fixed for evidence of the respondent-plaintiff on 23.2.2009. He has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and others, JT 2005(4) SC 204; Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, JT 2005(6) SC 486 and M/s R. N. Jadi and Brothers and others v. Subhashchandra, JT 2007(9) SC 165 to submit that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find merit in the contentions raised by him. It has been consistently opined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgments, referred to above, that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil C.R. No. 159 of 2009 [2] Procedure which provides time for filing of written statement is directory in nature. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. The petitioner is granted one opportunity to file written statement before the learned court below on or before the next date fixed subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the respondent. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.1.2009 mk