C.R. No. 5377 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 5377 of 2008 Date of decision: March 27,2009 Mani Chhabra ..Petitioner Versus Aloka Chhabra ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. R.S.Rai , Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) The husband-petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon whereby application filed by him for striking off defence of the respondent wife for not filing the written statement as provided under Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. has been rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the impugned order, respondent-wife has already filed a written statement. It is also the settled principle of law that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are hand-maid for administration of justice and they should be interpretted in such a manner so as to advance the interest of justice. Provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC are reproduced as under:- “10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.- Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case C.R. No. 5377 of 2008 2 may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that where any party fails to file a written statement as required under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court can make such an order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. Thus a discretion has been given to the court to pass an appropriate order. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. are different than the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. which are more stringent, yet the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Versus Union of India and others 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530 (SC) has held that the court has discretion to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of 90 days in exceptionally hard cases as Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. is directory in nature. In view of the aforesaid settled principle of law, it cannot be stated that the court is bound to strike of the defence of the defendant under Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C., if the written statement is not filed within 90 days. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be stated that the impugned order has been passed illegally. The trial Court has exercised its discretion to allow the respondent-wife to file written statement. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the revision petition. Dismissed March 27, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE