Civil Revision No.795 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.795 of 2009 Date of Decision:12.02.2009 Sat Paul Kagra ....petitioner Versus Prem Lata .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.S.P.Soi,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 08.01.2009 passed by Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.)Jalandhar, whereby an application filed under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant-petitioner has been dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed civil suit for declaration that the order dated 07.02.02007 passed by Rent Controller, Jalandhar is illegal, void, ab initio, result of fraud, mala fide, against the admitted facts and the same is not binding upon him and he is entitled to the refund of excess rent. It is further stated that in this petition that the respondent was served in this case on 15.06.2007. However, no written statement was filed by him up to 15.07.2007 as provided under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. Thereafter, defendant-respondent moved an application to allow him to file the written statement which was allowed and the plaintiff-respondent placed on record written statement on 29.11.2007. The petitioner moved an application under Order 8 Rule 10 for treating the written statement filed by the respondent as nonest. Vide impugned order, the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Civil Revision No.795 of 2009 2 Challenging the impugned order dated 08.01.2009 of the trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the trial Court has passed the impugned order ignoring the basic provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC according to which the defendant can file written statement within 30 days from the date of service. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent, in this case, was served on 15.06.2007 and was delivered copy of the plaint along with the copy of summons as he could file the written statement as per aforesaid provisions of law up to 15.07.2007, whereas he had filed the written statement on 29.11.2007 without seeking any extension of time and, therefore, the same is liable to be ignored. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no merit in the contentions raised by him. It is well settled that provisions of the CPC are handmaid for the administration of justice and the same are liable to be construed, liberally. Moreover, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC have been held to be directory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Zolba versus Kesho and others 2008(3) Civil Court Cases 081”. Even in the case of Saleem Advocate Bar Association versus Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344, it has been held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are directory in character and the delay can be condoned and written statement can be accepted even after the expiry of 90 days. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Revision petition is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 12.02.2009 neenu