Civil Revision No.2702 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2702 of 2008 Date of decision: 9.5.2008 Sukh Dayal .....Petitioner Versus Inder Kumar and Others .....Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J (Oral) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, challenging order dated 30.8.2007 passed by Civil Judge(Jr.Division), Gurgaon whereby an opportunity to file the written statement by the present petitioner-defendant was closed by order of the Court under Section 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is stated that the respondents-plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from interfering into the possession of the respondents-plaintiffs quo the suit property and from alienating the property. Petitioner-defendant put in appearance and sought time to file the written statement. Since the same was not filed on the fixed date, further adjournment was given for 30.8.2007 subject to payment of Rs.100/- as costs. On 30.8.2007, written statement to the suit as well as reply to the application U/o 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC could not be filed by the petitioner-defendant due to the fact that he had suddently fallen ill and moved to the hospital for treatment, therefore, the written statement and the reply to the application could not be filed and the cost of Rs.100/- could not be tendered in Court and hence the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.8.2007 closed the opportunity to file the written statement. It is further stated that the petitioner-defendant instead of filing revision petition, inadvertently, moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 30.8.2007 and hence the delay in filing of the present Civil Revision No.2702 of 2008 #2# revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings in the civil suit are still at the initial stage and the date fixed is 2.6.2008 for impleadment of certain persons as parties. Learned counsel further submits that the reason for non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated period was bonafide and for the reason that he was taken to the hospital for treatment and, therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgments in 2005 (4) Supreme Court Cases 480, Kailash v. Nanhku and Others and 2006 (1) Supreme Court Cases 46, Shaik Salim Haji Abdul Khyamsab v. Kumar and others, one last opportunity to file the written statement be granted subject to payment of compensatory costs. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and keeping in view the ratio of the judgments holding that the provisions under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory but directory in nature, I, to advance the cause of justice, deem it just and expedient to grant one opportunity to the petitioner-defendant for filing his written statement subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. Notice to the respondents-plaintiffs is not being issued to avoid unnecessary expenses and delay in the matter as also the fact that the respondents are being compensated by payment of costs. However, in case of any grievance, respondents-plaintiffs are given liberty to make appropriate application for recalling of the order. In view of the above, revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.08.2007 is set aside to the extent that it closes the opportunity of the petitioner-defendant to file his written statement, with a direction to the learned Trial Court to grant the petitioner-defendant one last opportunity for filing his written statement subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be disbursed in equal shares to the respondents-plaintiffs. May 09, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) mohan/manoj JUDGE