Civil Revision No. 2078 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2078 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.4.2010 Gurdev Singh and another ..... Petitioners vs Chattan Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non- filing of written statement by the petitioners, their defence was struck off. Notice was issued to the respondents. Inspite of service, they have not put in appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that written statement could not be filed on the date fixed i.e. on 4.2.2010 for the reason that counsel for the petitioners in the court below had noted down wrong date as 9.2.2010 instead of 4.2.2010. He submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit on 16.9.2006 and notice of the same was issued for 1.10.2009 on which date the petitioners had put in appearance. He further submitted that the written statement was ready on 25.11.2009, however, when they reached in the court, the case was adjourned to 4.2.2010 (wrongly noted down as 9.2.2010) and they did not file the same in the court. The defence of the petitioners was struck of vide impugned order dated 4.2.2010. 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. Civil Revision No. 2078 of 2010 -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 in case sufficient cause is shown for its non filing in time. In the present case, cause shown for small delay in filing of written statement is found to be sufficient. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. The petitioners are permitted to file written statement on 23.4.2010 before the learned court below. The issues, if already framed, may be modified or reframed keeping in view the stand of the petitioners/defendants in the written statement to be filed. 5.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge