IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 516 of 2009. Date of decision:- 29.01.2009. Kailasho Devi and others ...Petitioners Versus Darshan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral) The petitioners, who are defendants No.5 to 10, have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala whereby their defence has been struck off on account of non-filing of the written statement within 90 days of their appearance. Darshan Singh, contesting respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.04.2005 executed by respondents No.2 to 4/defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff in respect of land measuring 22 kanals described in the head note of the plaint praying for issuing directions for execution and registration of the sale deed on receipt of balance consideration. Further declaration to the effect that subsequent sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners subsequent vendees/defendants No.5 to 10 as null and void, has also been sought. Upon notice of the suit, petitioners appeared through their C.R. No. 516 of 2009 -2- counsel Shri J.S. Garewal, Advocate on 16.07.2008. Thereafter on the next date of hearing i.e. 12.09.2008 another Advocate namely Shri B.L.Sharma appeared on their behalf and the case was adjourned to 15.12.2008 for filing of written statement on behalf of petitioners-defendants as also for service of defendants No.2 and 3. On the next date i.e. 15.12.2008 service on defendants No.2 and 3 was not complete and therefore, fresh notices were issued for their service. On account of non-filing of written statement on behalf of the petitioners-defendants their defence was struck off. Learned counsel contends that due to the reasons that the matter was being in the process of arriving at compromise between the parties and the change of their counsel, the written statement could not be finalized and therefore, the delay occurred. Learned counsel prays for one last opportunity to file the written statement subject to payment of appropriate cost. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, which prescribe a period of 90 days for filing of the written statement, have been held to be directory in nature by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and others, 2005(2) RCR (Civil)379; by this Court in Surender Singh and others v. Omvati and others,2005(3) RCR (Civil) 786; and Housing Board Haryana v. Suresh and others, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 865. It has further been held therein that in exceptional circumstances the Court can extend the time beyond 90 days for filing the written statement so as to avoid injustice being C.R. No. 516 of 2009 -3- caused to the defendant(s). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid position of law, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if petitioners-defendants are granted one opportunity to file their written statement. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the petitioners-defendants are granted one last opportunity to file their written statement on the next date fixed or any date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the contesting respondent No.1-plaintiff. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondent-plaintiff since it would unnecessarily entail delay of proceedings and expenses on his part and he is otherwise, being compensated by way of costs. Allowed, with the aforesaid directions. January 29, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE