Civil Revision No. 7738 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7738 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.2.2010 Union of India ..... Petitioner vs Jagir Singh and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present petition, the challenge is to the orders dated 19.9.2009 passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non- filing of written statement by the petitioner, its defence was struck off. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that written statement could not be filed on the date fixed i.e. on 19.9.2009 for the reason that reply was received one day late through post from New Delhi. He submitted that the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte 25.3.2008. On coming to know about the ex-parte proceedings, the petitioner filed application which was allowed and the ex-parte order was set aside on 20.7.2009. Written statement could not be prepared as certain documents which were necessary for filing written statement were not available with the petitioner. Now on account of delay in filing the written statement, the defence of the petitioner was struck off on 19.9.2009. He further submitted that no effective proceedings have taken place after the passing of the impugned order. 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. The respondent/plaintiff in the present case is claiming freedom fighter's pension. Considering the fact that issuance of notice to him will result in his harassment and will further delay the trial of the suit, I deem it appropriate to decide the petition without issuing notice to the respondent. Civil Revision No. 7738 of 2009 2 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find merit in the contentions raised by him. It has been consistently opined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgments, referred to above, that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides time for filing of written statement is directory in nature. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. The petitioner is permitted to file written statement before the learned court below on or before the next date of hearing which is stated to be 3.3.2010. 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 to the respondent no. 1/plaintiff. 3.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge