Civil Revision No. 2655 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2655 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.4.2010 Jaspal Singh @ Pal Singh and another ..... Petitioners vs Kuldeep Singh and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. A. G. S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 11.3.2010 passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non- filing of written statement by the petitioners, their defence was struck off. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 on 29.1.2009 and after service of notice, defendants no. 1 and 2 (petitioners) put in appearance and the case was adjourned to 5.6.2009 for filing of address of respondent no. 2 (defendant no. 3). On 5.6.2009, as the service of respondent no. 2 was not complete, the case was adjourned to 19.8.2009 for which date also the service could not be completed for want of correct address of respondent no. 2 and the case was adjourned to 9.10.2009. On the adjourned date i. e. 9.10.2009, as the Presiding Officer was to attend the refresher course, therefore. the case was adjourned to 11.11.2009 on which date also for the same reason, the case was adjourned to 11.1.2010. On that day the petitioners could not file written statement on account of unavoidable circumstances and the case was adjourned to 11.3.2010 on which date the defence of the petitioners was struck of. He further submitted that no effective proceedings have taken place after the passing of the impugned Civil Revision No. 2655 of 2010 -2- order. Moreover, on the date when the impugned order was passed, the case was adjourned to 7.4.2010 only for filing of written statement by defendant no. 3. He has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kailash vs Nanhku and others, JT 2005(4) SC 204; Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, JT 2005(6) SC 486 and M/s R. N. Jadi and Brothers and others v. Subhashchandra, JT 2007(9) SC 165 to submit that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find merit in the contentions raised by him. It has been consistently opined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgments, referred to above, that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides time for filing of written statement is directory in nature in case sufficient cause is shown for its non filing in time. In the present case, there is delay in filing of written statement, however, as the case is fixed for filing of written statement by defendant no. 3, the cause shown for delay by the petitioners in filing of written statement is found to be sufficient. On account of delayed filing of written statement the proceedings in the suit have not been delayed as after service of the other defendant the case was fixed for filing of written statement by him. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. The petitioners are permitted to file written statement on or before the next date fixed before the learned court below. However, the same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the respondent/plaintiff. 23.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge