The provisions under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. are not mandatory but directory in nature, and any issue requiring evidence could not be decided as a preliminary issue.

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

1. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa-petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition against Jasdev Singh-respondent/defendant No. 1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer for setting aside the impugned joint order dated 3.10.2011 (Annexure-P. 1) passed in Civil Suit No. 3/27-1-2009/6.1.2010 titled as "Harbhajan Singh Bajwa v. Jasdev Singh and others" by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) being void ab initio with a direction to the said Court to take final decision on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 6 C.P.C. and the order dated 3.10.2011 passed in another application dated 29.9.2011 filed under Order 8 Rules 1, 9 and 10 C.P.C. Notice of motion in this case was issued. Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and contested this civil revision petition.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

3. At the time of arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner firstly argued that the petitioner/plaintiff was not present when this order was passed, therefore, the matter be remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the application after giving hearing to the parties. He stated that the earlier order shows that on 3.10.2011 the case was adjourned to 4.10.2011, but later on the impugned order was passed on the same day. Similarly, in the order, it is written that opportunity was given for replication, but the issues were framed on the same day. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further argued that the application under Order 7 Rule 6 C.P.C. was not decided on merit and was kept pending with the observation that it shall be decided after concluding evidence by both the parties with regard to the said facts. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that the written statement has not been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days, which can be extended upto 90 days. It was filed much later after the filing of the application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. by the present petitioner-plaintiff. No written request was made and no reasonable ground has been given in the application, therefore, this order should be set aside and defence of the defendant be struck off.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No. 1 argued that the order is as per law. No illegality has been committed by the Court below while passing the impugned order and there is no merit in the revision petition and the same should be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the plaintiff filed so many applications in the case and he himself has delayed the proceedings and due to filing of those applications the written statement could not be filed in time and there are reasonable grounds for filing the written statement late and the provisions are not mandatory in nature and the Court in the facts and circumstances has rightly passed this order.

5. From the record, I find that Harbhajan Singh Bajwa plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit against Jasdev Singh posted as DSP at 13th Battalion P.A.P., State of Punjab and D.G.P. for damages for malicious prosecution for grant of decree of damages in the sum of Rs. 15 Crores for implicating the plaintiff in a false and fabricated criminal case F.I.R. No. 151 dated 10.12.1998, which was registered at Police Station Kharar and injuries were also caused on the body of the plaintiff on 11.12.1998 by defendant No. 1 himself.

6. The trial Court heard the arguments on application dated 21.9.2010 filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 6 read with Section 151 C.P.C. As per the impugned order, the case of the plaintiff is that the suit of the plaintiff has been filed within a period of three years from the cause of action accrued to him, whereas on the other hand, the case of defendant No. 1 is that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The Court held that the