C.R. No. 800 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 800 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.2.2011 M/s Ludhiana Colonizers Private Limited ......Petitioner Versus H.P. Sharma and others .......Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed a suit for declaration that defendants had no status in the plaintiff company and none of them was director or office holder of the plaintiff company. Notice was issued to the defendants. An application was filed by the petitioner for striking off the defence as written statement had not been filed within the prescribed period. Vide the impugned order dated 6.12.2010, trial Court dismissed the application and granted one last opportunity to the defendants to file their written statement subject to payment of ` 2500/- as costs. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had erred in allowing the defendants permission to file the written C.R. No. 800 of 2011 (O&M) 2 statement. The defendants No.1 to 8, 10 and 13 had failed to file the written statement within the prescribed period nor they had given any sufficient cause for not doing the needful within the prescribed period. 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 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 C.R. No. 800 of 2011 (O&M) 3 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 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.” C.R. No. 800 of 2011 (O&M) 4 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that earlier an application had been filed by the defendants for production of documents and the said application was still pending. Case was also pending for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased-defendant No.9. In these circumstances, the discretion exercised by the trial Court while allowing one last opportunity to defendants No.1 to 8, 10 and 13 to file their written statement subject to payment of ` 2500/- as costs calls for no interference. Now the written statement has been filed by the defendants No.1 to 8, 10 and 13 on 22.12.2010. Now that the defendants have been allowed to file the written statement, the case between the parties would be disposed of on merits. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as they are based on different facts. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 3, 2011 Anand