CR No. 6786 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6786 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.11.2011 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Samalkha and others ....Petitioners Versus Dharam Pal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Madan Mohan, Advocate for the petitioners ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.8.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, vide which the application of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 5.8.2010 vide which the petitioners-defendants were precluded from filing the written statement and their defence was struck off. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is well settled that provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are directory and not mandatory. He further contends that delay in filing the written statement was due to official lapse and the same could not be prepared well in time. He further contends that being the last opportunity, the counsel for the petitioners was present and requested one more CR No. 6786 of 2011 (O&M) 2 opportunity to file reply. He further contends that if the petitioners are granted one more opportunity to file written statement, no prejudice will be caused to the other side. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. From the case file, it reveals that the counsel for the petitioners was present at that time, when their defence was struck off, but a request for adjournment was made. The petitioners being the Government Departments, such types of lapse in preparing the written statement is witnessed very often. Though, the petitioners have already availed sufficient effective opportunities, however, keeping in view the fact that non-filing of the reply would materially affect the outcome of the litigation between the parties, therefore, in the larger interest of the justice, one last opportunity can be granted to the petitioners to file the written statement. So far as the fact that due to action of the petitioners, delay has taken place in disposal of the suit, the opposite party can be compensated by way of cost. Resultantly, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. The impugned orders dated 27.8.2011 and 5.8.2010 are set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to file written statement on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court. The same shall be subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as costs. 7.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE