1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3295 of 2011. Date of Decision: 25.5.2011 *** Ramesh Chand .. Petitioner VS. Mool Chand & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioner is the defendant in the suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent-plaintiffs. He did not file the written statement. Subsequently, vide the impugned order dated 30.4.2011 his defence was struck off. Hence this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Order 8 Rule 1 CPC provides that the defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons, may file the written statement of his defence. However, the proviso to this Rule further provides that if the defendant does not file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be permitted to file the same on such day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. While interpreting the aforesaid provisions, in Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and others 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 823, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court can permit the defendant to file the written statement even beyond 90 days. No doubt the petitioner was somewhat negligent in filing the written statement, well in time, but this Court is of the considered opinion that if an opportunity to file the written statement is not afforded to the petitioner, he will certainly suffer an irreparable loss. Rules and procedure 2 are handmaid of justice. These are meant to enhance the cause of justice and not to scuttle the same. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs and Ors. Vs. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRs and Ors. 2003(3) SCC 272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under:- “Laws of procedure are meant to regular effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice.” Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and order, under challenge, is quashed. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to place on record his written statement. This order is subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondents in the Trial Court, at the time of filing the written statement. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. The petition stands allowed accordingly. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 25,2011 Jiten