IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 9 of 2010. Date of decision: 24.2.2010. I.D.Sharma ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person. For the Respondents : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is a revision petition against the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC for pronouncement of judgement. The further relevant facts are that petitioner had filed the suit against the respondent. The matter was listed before the trial court on 2.6.2009 and notice was issued to respondent for 29.7.2009. The notice was served upon the respondent on 17.6.2009, but despite that no written statement was filed by the respondent on 29.7.2009. . 2. It has been alleged that thereafter even up to 6.10.2009 no written statement was filed. In these circumstances, the petitioner had filed an application for pronouncement of judgement against the respondent under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. According to respondent Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… the written statement was filed on 20.10.2009 in accordance with the time granted by the court. It has also been alleged that petitioner was requested to supply a copy of the plaint to the respondent, but inspite the order of the court the petitioner refused to supply the copy of the plaint to the respondent, which was only provided on 6.10.2009. In these circumstances, the written statement could be filed only on 20.10.2009. 3. The learned Civil Judge has observed in the impugned order that time was given to the defendant to file written statement on 6.10.2009 and the case was fixed for filing written statement on 20.10.2009 but before that on 12.10.2009 an application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not assailed the order dated 6.10.2009. The petitioner has raised the grievance against the order dated 10.12.2009. The trial court on 6.10.2009 has granted time to the respondent for filing the written statement on 20.10.2009 and in fact the written statement has been filed on that day. The respondent has thus complied with the order dated 6.10.2009 of the court for filing written statement. 4. The Rule 10 of Order 8 CPC provides that where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the court shall pronounce judgement against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgement a decree shall be drawn up. In the present case, the respondent has complied with the order dated 6.10.2009 of the trial court for filing the written statement …3… on 20.10.2009. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. February 24, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.