IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.267/2009 Date of Decision:19.1.2009. Nathu Deen ..........Petitioner. Versus Bashir Ahmed and another. ..........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr.Ravinder Malik(Ravi)Advocate for the petitioner- defendant no.2. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). The petitioner-defendant no.2 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the order dated 3.4.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jagadhari, whereby the defence of petitioner has been ordered to be struck off on account of non-filing of written statement and reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, despite last opportunity. It is stated that respondent no.1 Bashir Ahmed filed a suit for possession regarding land measuring 8 marlas, allegedly in unauthorised possession of the petitioner-defendant no.2 and for recovery of mesne profits with a further prayer for decree of permanent injunction. The suit was filed on 12.12.2007. It is submitted that petitioner-defendant no.2 is semi-literate aged man of about 70 years and was unable to produce/submit the necessary documents, required for preparation of the written statement, CR NO.267/2009 2 to his counsel. It is further pointed out that after the passing of the impugned order dated 3.4.2008 (Annexure P/1), petitioner-defendant no.2 had filed an application for recalling of the said order which has been dismissed vide order dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P/2), as being not maintainable. Learned counsel prays for one last opportunity for filing written statement, which is necessary for effective adjudication of the case. As far as the period prescribed for filing the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, is concerned, the same has been held to be directory in nature by judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kailash v.Nankhu and others, 2005(2)RCR (Civil) 379(SC); and M/s R.N.Jadi & Brothers and others v. Subhashchandra, 2007(2)RCR (Rent) 139: 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 588: 2007(4) Raj 125 (SC); and of this Court in Surender Singh and others v. Omvati and others, 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 786 (P&H). It has further been held therein that in exceptional circumstances the Court can extend time beyond 90 days for filing written statement so as to avoid injustice being caused to the parties. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant no.2, and keeping in view the aforesaid legal principles, this Court is of the view that the petitioner on account of reasons given in the petition for non- filing of the written statement in time, is entitled to one more opportunity for filing his written statement, as no prejudice is going to be caused to the other side. Furthermore, keeping in view the nature of the suit, filing of the written statement would be essential for proper adjudication. It is quite CR NO.267/2009 3 settled that the approach of the Courts should be towards final and substantial determination of disputes between the parties, rather than defeating them on hypertechnical grounds. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.4.2008 (Annexure P/1) is set aside and the petitioner- defendant no.1 is granted one last opportunity to file his written statement, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent no.1. 19.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge