Civil Revision No. 7970 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7970 of 2011 Date of decision. 22.12.2011 Jaswant Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus Jasvir Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Defendants no.1 to 3 have challenged the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, vide which their defence has been struck off. Jasvir Singh, respondent no.1 had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he and the proforma defendants are owners in possession of land measuring 89 kanals 19 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Tandi Aulakh, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala and that the sale deeds dated 27.3.2006 executed by defendant no.5 in favour of defendant no.1, dated 28.09.2004 executed by defendant no.5 in favour of Civil Revision No. 7970 of 2011 --2-- defendants no.2 to 4,and dated 28.09.2004 executed by defendant no.5 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 are illegal, null and void and without consideration and do not affect the rights of the plaintiff and proforma respondents in the land in question. In the said suit, defendants no.1 to 3 had appeared through counsel and were to file written statement on 15.09.2011. On 15.09.2011 defendant no.7 appeared through counsel and a power of attorney on his behalf had been filed. Defendants no.4,6 and 8 were yet to be served. Even notices could not be given to them for want of their correct addresses. However, defendants no.1 to 3 are stated to have not filed the written statement and reply to the stay application despite last and final opportunity. The previous order was to the effect that if the said defendants failed to file the written statement and reply on the next date, their defence shall stand automatically struck off. Since no cause for non filing of written statement was shown, the court had struck off the evidence of defendants no.1 to 3. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. I proceed to decide this revision petition without giving notice to the other party because that would save the other party from unnecessary loss of time and money in coming to this court. However, the respondents may file an application for reviewing this decision if they would feel aggrieved thereby. Civil Revision No. 7970 of 2011 --3-- The provisions contained under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC giving 30 days time to the defendants to present their written statement, which could be extended to 90 days, though couched in mandatory terms, is yet a directory in nature. In suitable cases, the time for filing written statement could be extended even beyond 90 days. Though the defendants no. 1 to 3 had no reasonable explanation for not filing the written statement, yet some of the defendants were yet to be served with notices of the suit and the court was not prevented by non-filing of the written statement by defendants no.1 to 3 from taking further steps towards disposal of the suit. In these circumstances opportunity could be granted to defendants no. 1 to 3 to file the written statement subject to payment of costs. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to give one opportunity to defendants no. 1 to 3- petitioners to file the written statement. 22.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge