C. R. No. 2090 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2090 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 20, 2009 Shri Dhanwantry Educational Society and others .... Petitioners Vs. Dr. Chander Mohan Sharma and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by defendants no.1 to 4 assailing order dated 08.01.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, thereby accepting application of plaintiff-respondent no.1 and striking off the defence of defendants no.1 to 5 i.e. petitioners and respondent no.2 herein, for non-filing of written statement within the stipulated period of 90 days, as provided by Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short – the CPC). The petitioners put in appearance in the trial court on 27.09.2006. However, they did not file written statement within the requisite period of 30 days or the extended period of 90 days, as provided by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. The plaintiff moved an application for striking off C. R. No. 2090 of 2009 2 the defence of defendants no.1 to 5 for not filing the written statement within the requisite period. Much thereafter, the petitioners placed on record their written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the plaintiff moved application on 04.06.2007 for striking off the defence of defendants no.1 to 5 and the petitioners filed their written statement on 10.04.2008. The written statement was thus filed more than 1½ years after the petitioners put in appearance in the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the delay and negligence on the part of the petitioners is inexcusable, but in the interest of equity, justice and fair play, written statement of the petitioners, which has already been filed in the trial court, may be entertained on payment of heavy cost. It is also submitted that the petitioners were misled by their counsel in the trial court, who had moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and told the petitioners that written statement was not required to be filed till decision of the said application. It is submitted that the petitioners changed their counsel and then filed the written statement. The delay, on the part of the petitioners, in filing the written statement, is long and inordinate and is culpable and defeats the very purpose of amending the CPC for expeditious trial of the suits. However, provision of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC as so amended is directory, nevertheless the period of filing written statement cannot be extended indefinitely. In the instant case, I am of the considered view that since the written statement by the petitioners has already been placed on the record of the trial court much before the passing of the impugned order, the interest of justice would be met, if the said written statement is ordered to be taken into consideration by setting aside the impugned order on payment of exemplary heavy cost. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without notice to plaintiff-respondent no.1 so as to avoid further delay and to save him of the expenses of engaging counsel in the revision petition. C. R. No. 2090 of 2009 3 In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 08.01.2009 of the trial court is set aside and written statement already filed by the petitioners before the trial court is ordered to be taken into consideration, subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- as cost precedent. If the plaintiff-respondent no.1 so desires, he shall be at liberty to move this Court for recall of this order. April 20, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE