IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6862 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.12.2010 Gurcharan Singh .... Petitioner Versus Thakurdwara Nauharian Trust Society (Regd.) and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 30688-CII of 2010 For the reasons shown in the application, C.M. is allowed. Order dated 27.10.2010 is recalled and petition is restored to its original number. C.R. No. 6862 of 2010 Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.7.2010 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Ambala whereby application moved by the petitioner to recall the order dated 8.8.2008 striking of the defence of the petitioner was rejected. Undisputedly no written statement was filed within the statutory period as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and despite of service on the defendant-petitioner, petitioner remained absent and did not file any written statement and ultimately learned trial Court vide order dated 8.8.2008 directed to strike of the defence of the defendant. C.R. No. 6862 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Undoubtedly provision of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory but are directory in nature and on sufficient cause being shown learned Court can permit the defendant to file written statement beyond statutory period. In the present case defence of the defendant was directed to be struck of on 8.8.2008 because defendant did not file written statement despite of due service within the statutory period. Application for recalling the order dated 8.8.2008 was moved on 19.8.2009. The ground taken in the application is that defendant did not file written statement because he was assured by tenant in chief that tenant in chief would be contesting the suit on behalf of the sub- tenant–defendant (petitioner herein). Reason given by the defendant -petitioner seems to be afterthought and does not inspire confidence. In the opinion of this Court, trial Court was well within its jurisdiction while rejecting the application. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 07.12.2010 JUDGE reena