Civil Revision No.1681 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.1681 of 2009 Decided on : March 26, 2009 Sukhjit Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Sudhir Kumar ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Heard. The suit in this case was filed on 24.7.2008 and the petitioner (defendant in the suit) was served on 25.9.2008, therefore, the written statement could be filed by him within 90 days, thereafter, i.e, upto 25.12.2009, which he did not. As such, the impugned order dated 23.1.2009 was passed for striking off his defence. Though, the petitioner has failed to plead any plausible explanation for not filing the written statement in time, yet learned counsel appearing for him has submitted that since there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife, therefore, he was in agony and could not file the written statement. At the same Civil Revision No.1681 of 2009 [ 2 ] time, he has thrown himself at the mercy of the Court for providing him last opportunity to file the written statement, so that his meritorious claim is not defeated for want pleading defence. While considering the submissions, it is observed that the provisions with regard to the proceedings, provided in the Code of Civil Procedure are directory and not mandatory, therefore, the same could be relaxed in order to provide complete justice to the petitioner. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file the written statement within two months from today i.e, on or before 25.5.2009, subject to deposit of Rs.2000/- as costs. This petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party for the reason that if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, he will have to incur huge expenses in order to defend this petition and it would also delay the adjudication of the suit. However, if the respondent still feels dissatisfied with this order, he may move for recalling the same. March 26, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE