Civil Revision No. 1146 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1146 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 2.3.2009 Dharampal ..... Petitioner vs Naveen Kumar and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. M. K. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 2.12.2008 passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non- filing of written statement by the petitioner, his defence was struck off. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondents against the petitioner/defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner for the first time appeared in court on 20.6.2008 through his counsel. The case was adjourned to 16.7.2008 for filing written statement and reply to the application for stay. On the said date of hearing, the case was adjourned to 7.10.2008 by granting last opportunity for filing written statement. On 7.10.2008 the petitioner could not file written statement as his counsel was admitted in the hospital and the case was adjourned to 2.12.2008. On 2.12.2008 also request for adjournment was made on the ground that his counsel is not well and due to this reason the written statement could not be filed, but the learned court below rejected the same and struck off the defence. He further submitted that no effective proceedings have taken place after the passing of the impugned order. He has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kailash vs Nanhku and others, JT 2005(4) Civil Revision No. 1146 of 2009 (2) 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 Procedure which provides time for filing of written statement is directory in nature. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. The petitioner is permitted to file written statement before the learned court below on or before 21.3.2009. However, the same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as costs to respondents. As is evident from the impugned order after striking off defence of the petitioner, the court without framing issues directed the listing of the case for evidence of the plaintiffs. If not already framed, the court may also frame issues before the next date fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. 2.3.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge