CR No.4785 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4785 of 2010 Date of decision: 7.9.2010 Ashwani Bhardwaj ......Petitioner(s) Versus Harbans Kaur and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 3.6.2010 whereby application filed by the plaintiff-respondents under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC has been allowed and the defence of the petitioner has been struck off. As per the averments made in this petition, the plaintiff- respondents filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to get executed the sale deed in his favour after making the payment of sale consideration or in the alternative, to cancel the agreement of sale, dated 26.5.2006. As per further averments, the case was fixed for filing of written statement and reply to the stay application on 22.2.2008. On that date, another application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the defendant. Thereafter, the case was adjourned. The petitioner filed written statement and reply to the stay application on 25.3.2008 Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 11.11.2008. On which date, the plaintiff- respondents made a statement that they do no press the relief of CR No.4785 of 2010 2 mandatory injunction to execute and get registered the sale deed and they claimed only the relief for cancellation of agreement. It is relevant to notice that, the plaintiff-respondents filed application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC in the meantime. The defendant- petitioner filed reply to the aforesaid application on 26.2.2009. Along with this application, the petitioner also placed on record the written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondents also filed replication on 3.12.2009 and the case was adjourned. On 3.6.2010, the impugned order was passed whereby defence of the petitioner was struck off and it was directed that written statement of the petitioner will not be taken into consideration. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in view of the facts as narrated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and moreover, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are directory in nature. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents as the written statement is already on record of the case file and in fact the plaintiff-respondent has filed replication also to the aforesaid written statement, and therefore, defence of the petitioner cannot be struck off merely on the basis of technicalities. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and the present petition is without any merit and therefore, liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is well settled that provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are directory in nature. Moreover, the facts of the case reveal that the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner is already on record and in fact, CR No.4785 of 2010 3 the plaintiff-respondents have already filed replication to the aforesaid written statement. It is well settled that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for administration of justice. Moreover, the plaintiff- respondents can be well compensated with costs. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of costs which are assessed at Rs.2,000/-. The trial Court is directed to proceed further with the case in accordance with law keeping in view the pleadings of the parties which are already on record. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from today. Disposed of. September 7, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE