Civil Revision No. 3184 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3184 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.4.2010 Rita Bansal and others ...Petitioners Versus Mahesh Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioners apply for the invalidation of the order dated 11.4.2009 vide which the learned Rent Controller ordered the reception of written statement filed by respondents No.1 to 5 after the statutory period of 90 days was over. That order came to be granted by learned Trial Court while disallowing a plea under Order 8 Rule 1 and also under Order 8 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C., filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners for striking off the defence of respondents No.1 to 5. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently argued that though there can no dispute with the proposition that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. Are directory in nature. It requires to be noticed, that there was delay of about six years on the part of the defendants/respondents in the filing of the written statement. In support of the plea that the extension of time in such a case may be allowed if the circumstances of exceptional character occasion it. Reliance Civil Revision No. 3184 of 2009 -2- **** was placed upon Smt. Rani Kusum Vs. Smt. Kanchan Devi and others 2005 AIR (SC) 3304, Kailash Vs. Nanhku and others 2005 (4) S.C.C. 480 and Mohammad Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad and ors 2009(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 633. The plea was resisted on behalf of the respondents by relying upon Labha Singh Vs. Tejo Devi and others 2006(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 77. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that there is nothing wrong in the reception of the written statement by the learned Trial Court, particularly because the case never ever came to be fixed for filing of written statement. The plea raised thereby is that a case has to be necessarily fixed for the filing of written statement before the Court can consider striking off the defence if pleadings are not filed within the statutory period of 90 days or within the reasonable time thereafter. In the case before this Court, there was a delay of six years in the filing of the written statement. There is no warrant for the proposition that a case has to be necessarily fixed for the filing of pleadings in the first instance before that statutory period of 90 days could be counted. It is indicated in the Code of Civil Procedure itself that the period with effect from which the 90 days statutory period is to be counted with effect from the period indicated in the C.P.C. itself. There is nothing in the C.P.C. To the effect that the counting shall be taken with effect from fixture of the case for the filing of the written statement. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 11.4.2009 shall stand set aside. April 23, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge