Civil Revision No.2348 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2348 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 6, 2011 Jaswinder Singh .....Petitioner v. Forties Health Care Ltd. .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajvir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.9535-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2348 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 25.2.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mohali, vide which defence of petitioner-defendant has been struck off on account of non-filing of the written statement. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for recovery of `3,55,385/-, i.e., `3,45,034/- as principal and `10,351/- as interest from 31.3.2010 till the filing of present suit alongwith future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation was filed by respondent-plaintiff on the plea that father of petitioner-defendant was admitted in the respondent-hospital, who expired during treatment in the hospital. A sum of `3,27,000/- was already deposited by petitioner and, however, bill was raised for `7,12,471/- and Civil Revision No.2348 of 2011(O&M) -2- hence, balance amount is to be recovered. As per allegations, father of petitioner-defendant remained admitted in the hospital from 25.2.2010 to 31.3.2010. On notice being received, petitioner appeared before learned trial Court on 30.10.2010 and the case was adjourned to 9.12.2010 for filing written statement. However, as Court was on leave on 9.12.2010, the case was adjourned to 11.1.2011. As 11.1.2011 was declared a holiday, hence, the case was taken up on 12.1.2011, on which date the case was adjourned to 25.2.2011, when the impugned order was passed. It has been contended that order dated 12.1.2011 was passed in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner and that it was not in the knowledge of the petitioner that the date fixed for filing the written statement was 25.2.2011 and hence, written statement was not filed on that date. Law is well settled that provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory and only directory. Sufficient cause has been shown by petitioner-defendant for not filing the written statement within 90 days of the first appearance as case was being adjourned by learned trial Court and in fact 25.2.2011 was the first date for filing the written statement, after appearance of petitioner-defendant. In view of these facts, I am of the view that trial Court has committed an illegality and material irregularity in striking off the defence of petitioner-defendant. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-defendant to file written statement. Disposed of accordingly. 6.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.2348 of 2011(O&M) -3-