HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, NAINITAL Civil Revision No.2 of 2009 Bhupender Kaur & another ……… Revisionist Versus M/s Kumar Oxygen Ltd. & another ……… Respondents. Dated:- 21st June, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Devendra Pant, the learned counsel for the revisionists and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction restraining the defendant and their agents from connecting the road of the colony to the road of the plaintiff’s factory. During the pendency of the suit, the court below allowed the application of the defendant to file the additional written statement, but, for one reason or the other, the additional written statement was not filed within the stipulated time as granted by the court and, eventually, the defendant filed the additional written statement alongwith an application to condone the delay in filing the additional written statement. This application for condoning the delay filed under Section 148 read with 151 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as C.P.C.) was rejected by the trial court and the additional written statement was returned with the finding that the additional written statement was filed after more than one year and it was barred by limitation in view of the amended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. The trial court further found that the allegation that the defendant was ill was not supported by any medical proof. The defendant, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision under Section 115 C.P.C. Rules of Procedure are handmaid of justice. The procedure has to be moulded in accordance with the situation, which prevails at that moment of time. These rules are flexible and are not mandatory in nature as held by the Supreme Court in Salem 2 Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India 2005 (6) SCC 344 and Kailash Vs. Nanhku & another 2005 (4) SCC 480, wherein the Supreme Court held that the said provision as amended in the C.P.C. was not mandatory and it was directory in nature. In the case of M/s R. N. Jadi & brothers Vs. Subhashchandra 2007 (3) U.C. 1857, the Supreme Court held that the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is not part of substantive law and that the said provision was only incorporated to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics and delaying the disposal of cases causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court further held that the rules are handmaid of justice and the language employed by the draftsman of the procedural law should be liberally interpreted. In the light of the aforesaid, this court is of the opinion that when the court itself granted permission to the defendant to file the additional written statement, the same should have been accepted on payment of cost. Consequently, the impugned order of the court below dated 01.12.2008 rejecting the application of the defendants for condoning the delay and directing the return of the additional written statement cannot be sustained and is quashed. The civil revision is allowed. The defendant may file the additional written statement, within a week from the date of filing the certified copy of this order before the court below, on payment of cost of Rupees three thousand only, which shall be deposited within the same period. The amount so deposited can be withdrawn by the plaintiff without furnishing any surety. Dated 21.06.2010 LSR (Tarun Agarwala, J.)