Civil Revision No. 1858 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1858 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 2.4.2009 Municipal Corporation, Faridabad ..... Petitioner vs M/s Haryana Foundary Works and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 30.9.2008 passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non- filing of written statement by the petitioner-corporation, its 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 civil suit as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for declaration filed by respondents no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs on 29.4.2006 against the petitioner and respondents no. 3 to 13 /defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after receipt of notice/summon, one copy of the suit/plaint was sent to the office of Joint Commissioner for providing comments, however, inspite of reminders comments were not sent and for that reason the written statement could not be filed on the date fixed. The defence of the petitioner was struck off on 30.9.2008. He further submitted that no effective proceedings have taken place after the passing of the impugned orders. He has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kailash vs Nanhku and others, JT 2005(4) 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. Civil Revision No. 1858 of 2009 (2) As the facts of the present case suggest that non-filing of the written statement by the petitioner was a total lapse on its part as is evident it was on account of inaction on the part of Joint Commissioner that the written statement could not be filed in time. However, still considering the fact that it is a public authority, least its defence is struck off on account of non-filing of written statement which may not be a larger public interest, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. The petitioner/ corporation is permitted to file written statement before the learned court below on or before the next date of hearing i.e. 10.4.2009. The issues, if already framed, may be modified or reframed keeping in view the stand of the petitioner/defendant in the written statement to be filed. However, the same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. The same shall be paid by Mr. Dharminder Singh, Joint Commissioner (F), Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. 50% of the costs shall be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Faridabad and remaining 50% shall be paid to the plaintiffs/respondents. 2.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge