1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.612 of 2006. Shrichand son of Shri Hanuman Versus The Civil Judge (J.D.) Pilani, District Jhunjhunu & Another IN THE HIGH COURT OF JJDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.612 of 2006. Shrichand son of Shri Hanuman Versus The Civil Judge (J.D.) Pilani, District Jhunjhunu & Another Date of Order :::: 30/07/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Anil Poonia, Advocate, for Mr. Virendar Manjhu, Counsel for the Petitioner Per Court : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.01.2006 by which the defendant's right to file the written-statement has been closed. After hearing the petitioner, this Court on 24.01.2006 issued notices to the respondents and passed an interim order staying the proceedings before the learned trial Court. Despite service upon the plaintiff, the plaintiff chose not to appear before this Court on the returnable date of show-cause notice. 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.612 of 2006. Shrichand son of Shri Hanuman Versus The Civil Judge (J.D.) Pilani, District Jhunjhunu & Another In view of the above, this Court vide order dated 12.09.2008 admitted the petition and confirmed the interim order dated 24.01.2006. After admission, notices have been issued to the plaintiff and served, but none has appeared on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Notices were served upon the petitioner- defendant on 09.09.2005 and the time was allowed to the defendants to file the written-statement up-to 18.11.2005. On the said date, the defendant moved an application stating therein that he may be allowed to take a copy of the account book so as to able him to file the written- statement. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 06.01.2006 and simultaneously the defendants right to file the written- statement was also closed by the impugned order dated 06.01.2006. Since, none has appeared to opposed the writ petition and the fact that the defendant by the application (annexure-1) sought further time to file the written-statement on 18.11.2005, which was the date fixed and had also sought 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.612 of 2006. Shrichand son of Shri Hanuman Versus The Civil Judge (J.D.) Pilani, District Jhunjhunu & Another opportunity to take the copy of the account book from the record, the learned trial Court, in the interest of justice, ought to have afforded one more opportunity to the petitioner to file the written-statement after inspecting the record and the account books, which were the basis of the suit. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rani Kusum Vs. Smt. Kanchan Devi and Others, reported in 2005 (2) W.L.C. (SC) Civil 390 that the provisions of Order 8 are directory in nature and it is only where the Court finds that the defendants is adopting dilatory tactis that the harsh provisions of Order 8 Rule 1, C.P.C. need to be applied. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the defendant-petitioner was deliberately trying to avoid the filing of the written-statement as he had applied for time to file the written-statement for the first time on 18.11.2005. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the learned trial Court would afford an opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to inspect the record and to obtain the copy of the relevant documents so as to enable the defendants to file the written-statment. 4 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.612 of 2006. Shrichand son of Shri Hanuman Versus The Civil Judge (J.D.) Pilani, District Jhunjhunu & Another The writ petition as well as the stay application are disposed of as above. (Dalip Singh) J. ashok/