IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 642 of 2010 (M/S) Ram Krishna Uniyal S/o Late Sri Balak Ram Uniyal ..……… Petitioner Versus Smt. Nirmala Uniyal W/o Sri Ram Krishna Uniyal ……… Respondent Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Piyush Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent. The present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Family Court, Dehradun allowing the opposite party to file the written statement after the expiry of the aforesaid period as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a considerable delay in filing the written statement and, such delay, should not be condoned by the trial court on frivolous pleas. The learned counsel submitted that after the amendment of the provision of Order 8 of the C.P.C. in 2002, the provision became mandatory in nature and that time could be enlarged only on cogent and valid reasons being given. In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no reason existed and inspite of the fact that the defendant had procured a copy of the plaint, raised frivolous pleas, namely that a copy of the plaint was not supplied and, therefore, time should be enlarged. Be that as it may. The court finds that a discretion was exercised by the trial court in allowing the defendant to file the written statement beyond the stipulated period on payment of cost. Such discretion was based on the plea raised by the opposite party. It is settled principle that the provisions of the C.P.C. is a 2 handmaid of justice and that such provision should not be technically construed while permitting a party to file the written statement beyond the stipulated period. The Supreme Court in Kailash Vs. Nanku and others, 2005 (4) SCC 480 and Salim Adv. Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 has held that the provision of Order 8 C.P.C., even after the amendment in 2002, is directory in nature and is not mandatory and that a liberal approach should be adopted after considering the facts and circumstances of each case and an effort should be made that the matter is decided on merit rather than on technicalities. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that even though there has been a delay in filing the written statement, there is no palpable error for this court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. The Urgency application No. 3845 of 2010 is disposed of. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 8th October, 2010 Shiv