CR No. 6442 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6442 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.10.2010 Suresh Kumar .......... Petitioner Versus Laxmi Devi & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 17.7.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Panipat, vide which defence of the petitioner was ordered to be struck off for not filing the written statement within the stipulated period of 90 days, as envisaged under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order reads as under :- “Written statement on behalf of defendant no.1 not filed despite the fact that today it was the last opportunity for the defendant no.1 for filing written statement. Prescribed period of 90 days has already been lapsed. Therefore, defendant no.1 is hereby precluded from filing written statement and defence of this defendant is hereby struck off. Now case is adjourned to CR No. 6442 of 2010 -2- **** 5.10.2010 for filing replication.” The learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order on merit, and prays that in the interest of justice petitioner be granted one last opportunity to file the written statement on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and without going into the merit of the controversy, this Court feels that ends of justice would be served, if the petitioner is granted one last opportunity to file the written statement, on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court. The impugned order is accordingly set aside, specially when the reading of the impugned order shows that the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) has taken the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be mandatory, whereas these are directory, and only the learned trial Court on satisfying that sufficient cause being shown by the petitioner for not filing the written statement within the stipulated period of 90 days, the time for filing written statement could have been extended. The petitioner is granted one last opportunity to file the written statement on the date to be fixed by the trial Court. However, keeping in view the inconvenience caused to the respondents, the petitioner is burdened with costs, which is assessed at Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) 04.10.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE