Civil Revision No.3154 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3154 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 12, 2011 Hira Singh .....Petitioner v. Santokh Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Premjit Kalia, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 4.4.2011, Annexure P1, vide which defence of petitioner-defendant has been struck off by learned trial Court. 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. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that though there was delay on the part of petitioner-defendant in filing the written statement, however, provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory and rather the same is directory. It is further contended that it was not the intention of petitioner-defendant to delay the decision of the suit and rather the case is still at the stage of service of remaining defendants. It is further contended that perusal of various zimni orders passed by learned trial Court shows that service could Civil Revision No.3154 of 2011(O&M) -2- not be effected upon remaining defendants due to fault of respondent- plaintiff by not filing process fee, registered covers for their service within time, despite taking many opportunities. He has also placed reliance upon Sambhaji and others v. Gangabai and others, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 382 and Labha Singh v. Tejo Devi and others, 2006(20 RCR (Civil) 77. In the present case, though defence of petitioner-defendant was struck off by learned trial Court when written statement was not filed by him even after about ten months of first appearance, however, in view of the fact that the case is still at the stage of service of remaining defendants, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-defendant to file the written statement and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-defendant to file written statement subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. 12.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge