IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 331 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.1.2010 Brijbhushan Bagga ..... Petitioner Versus Kulbhushan Kumar Bagga ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr. Ashish Pal Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated November 13 th, 2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby, defence of the petitioner-defendant was struck-off for non-filing of written-statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-defendant did not file written statement as the talk of compromise between the parties was going on but the same did not fructify. In Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab vs. Kumar & others 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 823, Hon'ble Supreme Court commented upon the import of Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure by observing as under:- “Order VIII, Rule 1 after the amendment casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. The provision does not deal with the power of the court and also does not specifically take away the power of the court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for. Further, the nature of the provision contained in Order VIII, Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. Substituted Order VIII, Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and petitioners approaching the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the court faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. The procedural law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. - Justice is the goal of jurisprudence - processual, as much as substantive. (See Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, (1975(1) SCC 774)).” In view of the aforesaid dictum of law, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated November 13, 2009 (Annexure P/1) is set-aside. Consequently, the petitioner is accorded one opportunity to file written statement on the date fixed before the trial Court, that is, January 23 rd, 2010, subject to conditional costs of Rs.3,000/-. 19.1.2010 (Nawab Singh) som/SN Judge