IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1457 of 2010 (M/S) Laxman Singh Bisht S/o Shri Madan Singh Bisht ..……… Petitioner Versus Navdeep Nagalia S/o Shri Hari Ram Nagalia ……… Respondent Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Pawan Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent. The defendant has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 19th July, 2010, by which, the trial court had refused to accept the written statement on the record of the case. It transpires that a suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 3rd May, 2010 on which date summons were issued to the defendant fixing 2nd July, 2010 for filing the written statement. The summons were duly received by the defendant on 7th May, 2010 and the written statement was presented in the Court on 19th July, 2010 on which date the trial court rejected the application of the defendant to keep the written statement on record on the ground that it was not filed within the stipulated period of 30 days, i.e., on the date fixed which was 2nd July, 2010. Under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C, as amended in 2002, the maximum period under which the written statement could be filed is 90 days. Admittedly, the defendant had filed the written statement within 90 days on 19th July, 2010. The Supreme Court in the case of 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 provisions of Order 8 of the C.P.C.is not mandatory and that it is directory in nature and, 2 that the time to file the written statement could be enlarged in the given case. The provisions of C.P.C. are handmaid of justice and should not be technically construed, on the other hand, it should be liberally construed and, that a liberal approach should be adopted. In the present case, the Court finds that the trial court has adopted a rigid stand in rejecting the written statement solely on the ground that it was beyond the date fixed considering that the written statement was filed within the stipulated period of 90 days. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the impugned order dated 19th July, 2010 in so far as it relates to the rejection of the written statement cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The trial court is directed to accept the written statement filed by the defendant. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 18.08.2010 Shiv