CR No.3707 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3707 of 2010 Decided on : 25.08.2010 Bhoop Singh & another ... Petitioners versus Sohan Singh & another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present : Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.K.Singal, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is defendants' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 16.11.2009 whereby defence of defendants No.1 & 2 was struck off for non-filing of written statement. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that one single opportunity was given to the petitioners for filing the written statement. Though on that date when the impugned order was passed, an application was moved by the petitioners for treating the plaintiff-respondent as major as he attained the age of majority during the pendency of the suit and therefore no prejudice was going to be caused to the plaintiff-respondent for non- filing of the written statement of the petitioners on 16.11.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that provisions CR No.3707 of 2010 -2- of Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure as settled by Supreme Court of India Court has wide powers to allow the petitioners to file their written statement and as the defence of the petitioners cannot be shut merely on the basis of the technicalities. Moreover, the petitioners have also filed an affidavit in this Court wherein it is stated that defendants will cross-examine all the witnesses of the plaintiff- respondent on one date and will not seek any further adjournment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that they will conclude their entire evidence without any delay within one opportunity. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid averments the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order argueing that the suit is pending since 2005 and asking for one opportunity for filing written statement is only to delay the proceedings and moreover review filed by the petitioners was rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the various zimni orders which were produced during the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that upto 09.11.2009 a considerable time was spent by the trial court on deciding the applications for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and application under Order 7 Rule 11. It was only on 09.11.2009 when the Court granted one single opportunity to file written statement, that too, within a week. Not only this, it is not in dispute that on 16.11.2009, the petitioners had moved an application for treating the respondent as major and therefore no prejudice was going to be caused to the plaintiff-respondent for non-filing of written statement on 16.11.2009. Review filed by the petitioners was not maintainable CR No.3707 of 2010 -3- and is of no consequence. It is well settled that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are handmaid for administration of justice and same are to be construed liberally. It is also not in dispute that the written statement on behalf of the petitioners has already been placed on record before the trial court along with the application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of CPC for review of the order dated 16.11.2009. It is also not in dispute that provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is directory in nature and the Court has power to allow more time to the defendants to enable the defendants to file their written statement. Moreover, in view of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court in their affidavit and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition is liable to be accepted. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.11.2009 is set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial court on the date fixed i.e. 28.08.2010. On appearance, the petitioners shall make the payment of costs to the respondent. On their doing so, written statement already placed on record as stated above shall be taken to be their written statement and thereafter the trial court shall proceed further with the suit in accordance with law and same shall be disposed of expeditiously. It is further directed that the petitioners shall cooperate with the trial of the case and will not ask for any unnecessary adjournment. In case any replication is necessary to controvert the facts of the written statement of the petitioners or it is necessary to reframe the issues etc., the same shall be done by the trial court in accordance with law. Disposed of. CR No.3707 of 2010 -4- Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. August 25, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) sonia JUDGE