In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6581 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.2.2009 The Secretary, Department of PWD (B&R), Punjab and another ..... Petitioners vs Santokh Singh Sokhi ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 18.8.2008 passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non-filing of written statement by the petitioner-State, its defence was struck off. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submitted that written statement could not be filed in time due to procedural delay which is beyond the control of the petitioner-State. The petitioners had put in appearance on 14.5.2008 just after 90 days on 18.8.2008, the defence was struck off. He further submitted that no effective proceedings have taken place after the passing of the impugned order. 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 petitioners, 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. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. The petitioners are granted one opportunity to file written statement before the learned court below on or before the next date fixed subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as costs to the respondent. 10.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge