Civil Revision No. 8063 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 8063 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 23rd, 2011 Shalini Gulati .... Petitioner Versus Naresh Gulati and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Shalini Gulati, defendant No.1 is in revision before me against the order dated 6.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, vide which her defence in the suit brought against her by her husband, Naresh Gulati has been struck off. In the suit brought by Naresh Gulati for declaration to the effect that the act of defendant No.1 in entering into agreement of sale of share of the house for discharging her liability of loan towards defendant No.2 is illegal and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from selling the share in the aforesaid house for the aforesaid purpose, defendant No.1 had put in appearance on 22.3.2011 and as written statement on her behalf was not filed even on 6.8.2011, her defence had been struck off. Civil Revision No. 8063 of 2011 2 .. It is relevant to mention here that on 6.8.2011, there was an application before the court filed by the petitioner for supply of Annexure P5. It was claimed by her in the application that the said document was necessary for preparing the written statement. As the application was moved on the 8th opportunity and was not moved on first or second opportunity, learned trial court observed that the same would have been moved on the first or second opportunity, if the document was necessary for preparing the written statement. In these circumstances, it is found that the application had been filed just to gain time for filing written statement and, therefore, the application was dismissed and simultaneously, the defence of the petitioner was struck off. Learned trial court could not be held justified in striking off the defence simultaneously with dismissal of the application of the petitioner seeking supply of Annexure P5. If the application was found to have no merit, it could have been dismissed on that day but further opportunity to defendant No.1 could be granted for filing the written statement though subject to payment of costs. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory but directory in nature. The time for filing written statement could be extended beyond 90 days in suitable cases. It is a case where husband and wife are litigating and it cannot be treated as a simple dispute. Such disputes are threats to the healthy fabric of the society. The wife should not be condemned unheard in such a case. In these circumstances, I accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order directing learned trial court to grant one short opportunity to the petitioner to file her written statement, subject to Civil Revision No. 8063 of 2011 3 .. payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 23rd, 2011 som