Civil Revision No. 2294 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2294 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.4.2010 Sucha Singh ..... Petitioner vs Harvinder Kaur ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. M. S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 12.1.2010 passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non-filing of written statement by the petitioner, his 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 respondent, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 1,80,000/- as arrears of maintenance from the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice of the suit was issued to the petitioner on 4.7.2009. As the petitioner was not served, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.7.2009. The petitioner appeared for the first time on 27.8.2009 and filed application for setting aside of ex-parte order in which notice was issued to the respondent for 22.9.2009. On 22.9.2009, the court below set aside the ex-parte proceedings and imposed Rs. 500/- as cost and the case was adjourned to 23.10.2009 for filing written statement on which date also the case was adjourned to 18.11.2009 for the same purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was not in the knowledge of payment of cost, he could not deposit the costs imposed by the court on earlier dates. On 12.1.2010, the defence of the petitioner was struck off. It was further argued that the court below has neither passed any order regarding the filing of civil suit by the respondent as an indigent person nor marked any enquiry to find out the status of the respondent and without granting the permission to the respondent to sue as an indigent person, the suit cannot be proceeded further and prayed that order dated 12.1.2010 striking off defence of the petitioner be set aside Civil Revision No. 2294 of 2010 2 and the petitioner be granted one opportunity to file the written statement. He further submitted that no effective proceedings have taken place after the passing of the impugned order. The case is stated to be fixed for 8.4.2010. 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. 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 petitioner, 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. Considering the fact that though there is delay in filing of written statement by the petitioner but the same is not inordinate, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. The petitioner is permitted to file written statement on 8.4.2010 before the learned court below subject to payment of Rs. 4,100/- as costs. This shall be in addition to the costs already imposed. The amount of cost has been assessed considering the amount of court fee payable by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit filed and as has been informed by the counsel for the petitioner. The amount shall be deposited in the court for which court fee shall be purchased and affixed in suit so that it could proceed on merits. The issues, if already framed, may be modified or reframed keeping in view the stand of the petitioner/defendant in the written statement to be filed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 6.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge