Civil Revision No.5334 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.5334 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.9.2009 Mukhtiar Singh and others ......petitioners Versus Amarjit and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kumar Vishav Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.5.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Patiala, whereby, defence of the defendants was struck down by order. Plaintiff Amarjit Kaur filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating, selling, transferring, mortgaging or disposing of any part of the suit land. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants. Defendants appeared before the trial Court on 10.4.2008 and the case was adjourned to 15.4.2009 for Civil Revision No.5334 of 2009 2 filing of written statement by the defendants. On 15.4.2009, the case was adjourned to 21.4.2009 for filing of written statement by the defendants. On 21.4.2009, the case was again adjourned to 28.4.2009 for filing of written statement by the defendants. On 28.4.2009, last opportunity was granted to the defendants to file their written statement on 11.5.2009. On 11.5.2009, the defence of the defendants was struck off and the case was adjourned for plaintiff's evidence. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was infructuous as the sale deed had already been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 before the filing of suit i.e. on 4.3.2009. Now the case is fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 7.10.2009. Learned counsel has further submitted that the defendants be allowed to file their written statement on the said date. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Raj Kumar vs. Rati Ram 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 162, wherein it was held that though as per Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant is required to file the written statement within thirty days from the date of service of summons but the proviso to the said rule provides that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court for the reasons to be recorded in writing, which shall not be later than ninety days from Civil Revision No.5334 of 2009 3 the date of service of summons. The trial Court should have further extended the time for filing the written statement as the period of ninety days had not yet elapsed. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC were directory and not mandatory. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. The ends of justice require that a dispute between the parties is disposed of on merits. When a substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In case one opportunity is granted to the petitioners to file their written statement, then the lis between the parties would be disposed of on merits. Moreover, the other side can be compensated with costs. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are permitted to file their written statement on or before the date fixed before the trial Court i.e. 7.10.2009 subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as costs. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed with the case further in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE September 16, 2009 anita