CR No. 1518 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1518 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.03.2011. Darshan Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Vijay Kumar and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. M.J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 25.8.2007. Vide impugned order dated 5.2.2011 the defence of petitioner-defendant No.2 was struck of. Hence, the present petition by defendant No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although, the written statement had been prepared by the counsel for the petitioner on 5.2.2011 but the same could not be filed before the trial court on 5.2.2011 as the written statement was got mixed up with another case file. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on “M/s R.N.Jadi & Brothers & Others versus Subhashchandra, 2007(9) JT 165, wherein it was held as under:- “25. A dispensation that makes Order VIII Rule 1 CR No. 1518 of 2011 (O&M) -2- directory, leaving it to the courts to extend the time indiscriminately would tend to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the amendments to the Code. It is, therefore, necessary to emphasize that the grant of extension of time beyond 30 days is not automatic, that it should be exercised with caution and for adequate reasons and that an extension of time beyond 90 days of the service of summons must be granted only based on a clear satisfaction of the justification for granting such extension, the court being conscious of the fact that even the power of the court for extension inhering in Section 148 of the Code, has also been restricted by the legislature. It would be proper to encourage the belief in litigants that the imperative of Order VIII Rule 1 must be adhered to and that only in rare and exceptional case, the breach thereof will be condoned. Such an approach by courts alone can cary forward the legislative intent of avoiding delays or at least in curtailing the delays in the disposal of suits filed the courts. The lament of Lord Denning in ALLEN v. SIR ALFRED MCALPINE & SONS [(1968)1 All E.R. 543] that law's delays have been intolerable and last so long as to turn justice sour, is true of our legal system as well. Should that state of affairs continue for all times ?” Learned counsel has further placed reliance on “Kailash versus Nanhku & others, 2005 (4) SCC 480, wherein it was held as under :- “41. Ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII, Rule 1 has to be honoured. The defendant should be CR No. 1518 of 2011 (O&M) -3- vigilant. No sooner the writ of summons is served on him he should take steps for drafting his defence and filing the written statement on the appointed date of hearing without waiting for the arrival of the date appointed in the summons for his appearance in the Court. The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the Court to its satisfaction. It must be spelled out that a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code was being allowed to be made because the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice, and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended.” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Although, the petitioner had failed to file the written statement within the stipulated time but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to file his written statement. Copy of the written statement, prepared by the counsel for the petitioner on 5.12.2011, has been placed on record. Now the case is listed before the trial court on 12.3.2011. CR No. 1518 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to file his written statement on 12.3.2011 before the trial court subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as costs. (SABINA) JUDGE March 04, 2011 Gurpreet