Civil Revision No. 6605 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6605 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 01.11.2011 Suresh Pal Mittal and another .... Petitioners Versus Satwinder Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Ajay Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This revision petition has been brought by defendants no. 1 and 2 under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 27.07.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Garhshankar (Annexure-P1) vide which the defence of the petitioners had been struck off for their inability to file written statement within a period of 90 days. The plaintiff Satwinder Singh and another, respondents before me, had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10.08.2008 on 22.2.2011. In the said suit, the defence of the petitioners-defendant no.1 and 2 was struck off vide order dated 27.07.2011 on their inability to file their written statement within time. It has been noticed by learned trial court that they had appeared through Civil Revision No. 6605 of 2011 --2-- their counsel in the suit on 09.04.2011 and till 27.07.2011 they had failed to file their written statement. It is a case where there were numerous defendants. On 27.07.2011 itself some of the defendants were ordered to be summoned for 26.08.2011. The plaintiffs were yet to file the correct addresses of defendants no. 5 to 7, 10, 12 and 25 and on their filing the correct addresses, the process had been ordered to be issued to them. It is, however a fact on the record that defendants no.1 and 2 had put in their appearance through their respective counsel on 09.04.2011 and they did not file written statement till 27.7.2011. This shows that they had committed breach of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory and are rather directory. According to him, the court has to deal with this aspect taking into account the facts of this case. According to him, when the service upon the defendants in the suit had not been completed and there were some defendants left unserved for whom even correct addresses were yet to be filed, the defence of the petitioners should not have been struck off. According to him, opportunity could be given to them subject to payment of costs. He has cited before me two decisions of Coordinate Benches of this court in cases Housing Board Haryana v. Suresh and others (2008-4) PLR 218 and Swaran Ram and others v. Jaimal Ram (2010-2) PLR 752 to support his submissions. Civil Revision No. 6605 of 2011 --3-- As has been laid down in the decisions cited above, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are directory. They have not to be applied indiscriminately without taking into account the attending circumstances. In the case in hand, when some of the defendants were yet to be served with notice of the suit, the interest of early disposal of the suit was not going to be served by striking off the defence of the petitioners. The petitioners could be given an opportunity to produce their written statement subject to payment of costs. In these circumstances, I find the impugned order to be unjustified. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed permitting the petitioners to present their written statement subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 01.11.2011 JUDGE dinesh