Civil Revision No. 3095 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3095 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.5.2010 Parkash @ Om Parkash and others ..... Petitioners vs Ram Sarup and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. H. N. Sahu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 3.4.2010 passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non- filing of written statement by the petitioners, their defence was struck off. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 11 for correction of Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 and correction of khasra Girdawari from Kharif 2007 onwards. After service of notice, petitioners/defendants put in appearance on 18.7.2009. On the date when the impugned order was passed, the petitioners could not file written statement as the required documents were not supplied by the revenue authorities. Their counsel requested the learned court below for an adjournment but the same was turned down and the case was adjourned to 12.5.2010 for evidence of the plaintiffs and defence of the petitioners was struck off. He further submitted that the written statement is now ready and they be permitted to file the same as after the passing of impugned order no effective proceedings have taken place. He has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kailash vs Nanhku and others, JT 2005(4) SC 204; Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, JT 2005(6) SC 486 and M/s R. Civil Revision No. 3095 of 2010 -2- N. Jadi and Brothers and others v. Subhashchandra, JT 2007(9) SC 165 to submit that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I find merit in the contentions raised by him. It has been consistently opined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgments, referred to above, that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides time for filing of written statement is directory in nature in case sufficient cause is shown for its non filing in time. In the present case, there is delay in filing of written statement, however, as the documents required for preparing the written statement were not available with the petitioners, the delay in filing of written statement is found to be sufficient. The case is now stated to be fixed for 21.7.2010 for evidence of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. The impugned order striking off the defence is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to file written statement before the court below on or before 28.5.2010. However, the same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost to the respondents/plaintiffs. As the date for leading evidence by the plaintiffs is fixed for 21.7.2010, the learned court below will complete the exercise of filing of replication or framing/re-framing of issues before the next date of hearing fixed for evidence so that proceedings in the suit are not delayed further. 19.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge