Civil Revision No. 7709 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7709 of 2011 Date of decision. 14.12.2011 Kamaljit Kaur .... Petitioner Versus Baljinder Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Kamaljit Kaur, defendant no.2 has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar, vide which her defence has been struck off. Baljinder Singh had filed a suit against Gurmail Singh and Kamaljit Kaur, petitioner for declaration to the effect that he continues to be owner in possession of land/plot situated in village Khanpur, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali as detailed in head note of the plaint and the sale deed dated 18.01.2011 executed by defendant no.1 as general attorney of the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.2 is null and void. He Civil Revision No. 7709 of 2011 --2-- has sought the relief of permanent injunction as a consequential relief. In the said suit, defendant no.2 appeared for the first time on 06.06.2011. As written statement had not been filed on behalf of defendant no.2 on 25.10.2011 even, the defence of defendant no.2 had been struck off. I have heard Mr. A.S. Barnala, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the object of incorporating limits in the Civil Procedure Code to the periods to be given for filing written statement or leading evidence is never the decision of the suits on technical grounds without adjudicating upon the real questions in controversy between the parties. He has submitted that defendant no.2-petitioner has purchased suit property from the plaintiff through his general attorney and if her evidence is struck off, she will lose the battle without even having a contest on merits of the case. He has submitted that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory but directory and in appropriate circumstances extension can be given to the defendant to produce written statement even after 90 days. He has submitted that the petitioner is a woman and she had given the papers to her counsel and her counsel failed to prepare and present the written statement. According to him, she is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property and if she is not given opportunity to file written statement opposing the claim of the plaintiff, she will not be able to prove her claim. Civil Revision No. 7709 of 2011 --3-- It is true that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are directory and not mandatory. It is a case where defendant no.1 had been proceeded against ex-parte on 20.07.2011 and the written statement was then ordered to be filed by defendant no.2 on 22.09.2011. No application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings came before defendant no.1 as could be expected and, therefore, the written statement was ordered to be filed on 25.10.2011. The petitioner does not seem to be justified at all in not even being able to file the written statement on 25.10.2011. However, ends of justice would be defeated if the suit is decided after striking off the defence of defendant no.2, who has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff through his attorney defendant no.1. So in these circumstances, the interest of justice requires one more opportunity to be given to defendant no.2- petitioner to file the written statement. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs. Learned trial court is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement. 14.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge