The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 CPC and the emphasis on following the time schedule for filing the written statement as a rule, with departure being by way of exception.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 15.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby, the defence of the petitioners has been struck off.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present revision petition are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for direction to the petitioners-defendants to restore his possession of shop in dispute and also for permanent injunction restraining them from demolishing, alienating or letting out the shop in dispute. After issuing notice in the civil suit, petitioners-defendants put in appearance but the written statement could not be filed. However, during the pendency of the civil suit, the petitioners-defendants filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed without seeking any reply and the trial Court also struck off the defence of the petitioners-defendants vide separate order dated 15.11.2016, which has been challenged by way of filing the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind as the respondent-plaintiff has filed frivolous civil suit just to harass the petitioners. The application for rejection of plaint was filed by the petitioners but no reply was sought and the same was dismissed on the same day. Learned counsel further submits that the first suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was withdrawn on 16.04.2016 and thereafter, the present suit was filed after a period of one month and no reason whatsoever was given as to how the second suit was maintainable. Learned counsel also submits that the approach of the trial Court was hyper technical while striking off the defence of the petitioners.

4. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused impugned order dated 15.11.2016 as well as other documents available on the file.

Impugned order dated 15.11.2016 is reproduced as under :-

"Now case is again called at 4:00 PM but defendants are not ready to file written statement. Perusal of file shows that defendants first appeared on 1.8.2016 and since then they have not filed written statement for the reasons best known to them. More than three months have elapsed after the appearance of defendants but the defendants failed to file written statement. No new ground is made out to adjourn the case for the said purpose again and again as the defendants have already availed statutory period as mentioned in C.P.C. Hence, the prayer of Ld. Counsel for the defendants is declined and the defence of defendants is hereby struck off."

5. In the impugned order, simply it has been mentioned that the written statement has not been filed in spite of passing of three months'.

6. Undisputedly, as per provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 CPC, the written statement is to be filed within a period of 90 days but the Court has the discretion to allow the defendants to file written statement even after expiry of 90 days under exceptional circumstances as Order 8, Rule 1 is directory. Even the Court has discretion to grant more than three opportunities/adjournments in case of special and extraordinary circumstances, which are beyond the control of the party. Similar view has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, 2005(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 530 which is as under:-

"In construing this provision, support can also be had from Order 8, Rule 10 which provides that where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. On failure to file written