CR No.5353 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No.5353 of 2008 Date of decision March 3, 2009 Subhash Chander Sharma and others ....... Petitioners Versus M/s Siddhi Vinayak, Restaurant and Foods and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Ms. Kamalpreet, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 5. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The revision petitioner complains of a permission granted by the Court to file a written statement on behalf of tenant beyond the period of 90 days. 2. Although the amendment which was brought to the Civil Procedure Code is brought with the lofty purpose of ensuring a quick trial and the parties do not indefinitely prolong proceedings unjustifiably, the Supreme Court itself has stated in a decision in Salem Bar Association Case that the period prescribed under the amended provisions are not mandatory and the Courts would for sufficient reasons extend the period statutorily provided. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the service of summons had been made on 29.5.2007 and the application to CR No.5353 of 2008 2 receive the statement had been filed only on 2.8.2008. This is the justification for not filing it within time. It was alleged by the defendant that he had moved a petition for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and therefore, he did not file the statement within time. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 are independent of the duty of the defendant to file a written statement within time prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1. Be that as it may, the Court below has exercised its discretion to condone such delay and the order is not either illegal or improper to be susceptible for intervention in revision. The Civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 3, 2009 archana