IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2403/2009 Date of Decision: 30.4.2009. Kishan Lal Nanda ..........Petitioner. Versus Naresh Behal ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Ms.G.K.Mann,Advocate for the petitioner-defendant. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioner is a defendant in a suit for possession as owner by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.8.2003, filed by Naresh Behal-plaintiff (respondent herein). The said suit was instituted on 8.2.2005. The suit was fixed for filing written statement on 11.5.2005, 9.6.2005 and 1.8.2005. Petitioner failed to file written statement whereupon vide order dated 5.8.2005 (Annexure P/1) his defence was ordered to be struck off. More than three months thereafter i.e. on 18.11.2005, the petitioner challenged the order dated 5.8.2005 by filing a review application, which was not maintainable. That review application was also dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.3.2008 (Annexure P/3). Hence the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 5.8.2005 and 20.3.2008 (Annexures P/1 and P/3 respectively). CR NO.2403/2009 2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any justifiable reason warranting interference by this Court. A perusal of the facts noticed above reveals that the petitioner has been thoroughly negligent in defending the case. Even after his defence was struck off, he firstly pursued a wrong remedy by filing a review application and that too after a delay of more than three months. The said review application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 20.3.2008. The instant revision petition has been filed after more than a year. No doubt provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, which prescribe a period of 30 days, extendable upto 90 days, for filing written statement are directory in nature but such a culpable careless approach, as is evident in the present case, on the part of the petitioner- defendant, in my opinion, does not entitle him to seek indulgence of this Court. Law comes to the rescue of a vigilant litigant and not one who sleeps over his rights. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. 30.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge