CR No. 419 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 419 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision:- 28.10.2010 Mehtab Singh and others ......petitioners vs. Karnail Singh ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Defendants No. 28 to 31 are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by learned trial Court on 8.11.2005, whereby the written statement filed on behalf of the said defendants was not permitted to be taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the joint written statement was filed on behalf of defendants No. 28 to 33 but the said written statement has been taken on record qua defendants No. 32 and 33 as the said defendants have put in appearance on 9.8.2005. The written statement filed by the petitioners was not taken on record as they have put in appearance on 7.6.2005. The reasoning given by learned trial Court not to accept the written statement on behalf of defendants No. 28 to 31 is patently illegal and not tenable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in CR No. 419 of 2006 -2- AIR 2005 SC 3353, Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India , wherein it has been held that provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 are directory. In view of the said fact, order passed by learned trial Court on 8.11.2005 is set aside and the written statement filed on behalf of defendants No. 28 to 33 is permitted to be taken on record. Revision stands disposed of. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 28.10.2010 preeti