C. R. No. 693 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 693 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 02, 2010 Neeraj Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. Ms. Kailash Sharma and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Kamalpreet, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Neeraj Kumar - defendant no.1 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 08.01.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, whereby defence of defendant no.1-petitioner has been struck off for non-filing of written statement and ad interim injunction has been granted till next date of hearing i.e. 05.03.2010 restraining defendants no.1, 3 and 4 i.e. petitioner and proforma respondents no.3 and 4 from interfering in the possession of plaintiff-respondent no.1 over the suit property. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner put in appearance in the trial court on 11.08.2009. However, for almost five C. R. No. 693 of 2010 2 months till 08.01.2010 i.e. the date of impugned order, defendant no.1 did not file written statement inspite of last opportunity granted for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the period of 90 days specified in proviso to Rule 1 of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), making provision for filing of written statement not later than 90 days from the date of service of summons, is directory and not mandatory. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file his written statement. Order 8 Rule 1 CPC lays down that the defendant shall, within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him (and not from the date of appearance in the Court), present written statement of his defence. Thus, written statement has to be filed within 30 days and not even within 90 days from the date of service of summons on the defendant. However, proviso to Rule 1 of Order 8 CPC lays down that if the defendant fails to file written statement within the aforesaid period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the same on some other day, but not later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. It is correct that the aforesaid provisions are directory and not mandatory. Rules of procedures are hand-maids of justice and are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the same. However, the statutory provision, which has been introduced with salutary object of curtailing delay in disposal of cases, cannot be rendered completely nugatory by permitting the defendant to file written statement even beyond period of 90 days in a routine manner. However, at the same time, step of striking off defence of defendant is a very harsh step. The trial court was forced to take the harsh step because of the conduct of the petitioner himself. However, inspite thereof, the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of one more opportunity may be accepted in the interest of justice on payment of heavy cost. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without C. R. No. 693 of 2010 3 issuing notice to plaintiff-respondent no.1 so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and to save respondent no.1 of the expenses he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the purpose of the instant revision petition, if notice of the petition is issued to him. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent. The petitioner shall file written statement in the trial court on or before 05.03.2010 i.e. the next date of hearing fixed in the trial court and no other opportunity shall be granted for this purpose. February 02, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE