JUDGMENT :

1. Heard

2. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 9.5.2019 in Civil Suit No.3-A/2019 passed by the Eight Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby, an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC, has been dismissed.

3. Mr. Sudhir Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiffs have filed a suit on 02.1.2019, in which, defendant No.1 has appeared on 17.1.2019, but he has not filed the written statement within the stipulated period of 30 days as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. Though respondent No.1 has filed the written statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons, but he neither filed any application for further extension of limitation to file the written statement nor stated the reason for late filing of the written statement. He further submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs have moved an application on 21.2.2019 under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC as the defendant has failed to file the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC within the time permitted or fixed by the Court. Consequently, the trial Court, in an arbitrary manner, dismissed the application of the plaintiffs filed under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC vide the impugned order. Therefore, learned counsel prays to quash the impugned order and direct the trial Court to not to read the written statement filed on 14.3.2019 by respondent No.1/defendant, in the proceedings of the case. He would place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of M/s. SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And others, AIR 2019 SC 2691 and Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad and others, (2009) 3 SCC 513.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would support the impugned order and submit that within the stipulated period of 90 days, the written statement has been filed and the procedural law cannot be used for punishment of the parties in the conduct of the proceedings. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Prakash Corporates Vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited, (2022) AIR (SC) 946.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

6. Time and again, it has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

7. It is also well settled principle of law that the Courts are meant to do substantial justice between the parties and the technical rules or procedures should not be given precedence over doing substantial justice. Justice according to law does not merely mean technical justice but means that law has to be administered to advance justice. To achieve such goal, the Civil Procedure Code has been entrusted wide power, which is inherent in every Court and on such term, the Court should pass orders as it may thinks fit for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

8. In the present matter, on perusal of the order sheets, it appears that the trial Court has not given a single warning to the defendant to file the written statement and from time to time, extended the period of filing of the written statement. Subsequently, the defendant/respondent No.1 filed his written statement on 14.3.2019 i.e. within 90 days and consequently vide the impugned order dated 9.5.2019, the application preferred by the plaintiffs/petitioners on 21.2.2019 has been dismissed.

9. In Mohammed Yusuf(supra) , the scope of Order 8 Rule 1 and the proviso thereto has been clarified. The relevant paras 9 to 11 reads thus:

9. It is urged that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been held to be directory in nature by this Court in Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Ors. - (2005) 4 SCC 480, this Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdi