The time schedule for filing the written statement should generally be followed as a rule and departure should be by way of exception. The extension of time beyond 90 days should be granted only based on a clear satisfaction of the justification for granting such extension, and the power of the court to extend time for filing the written statement is not completely taken away, but should be exercised with caution and for adequate reasons to be recorded.

NAMIT KUMAR J. ORAL

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is for setting-aside the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala in CS No.94 of 2021, whereby the defence of the petitioners/defendants has been struck-off on account of non-filing of written statement despite availing several opportunities within the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of effecting service upon them.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners/defendants were proceeded ex parte on 21.03.2022 in a civil suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff and thereafter, on coming to know about the ex parte proceedings, the petitioners/defendants No.2 and 3 have appeared before the learned trial Court on 09.01.2023 and on the very said date, the ex parte order was set-aside by the learned trial Court, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to be paid to the plaintiff by each defendants No.1 to 4 for causing delay in the proceedings and thereafter, the case was fixed for filing written-statement on 10.02.2023, 31.03.2023, 01.05.2023 and 13.07.2023, however, on 17.08.2023 and 12.09.2023, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and instantly, on 06.10.2023 the impugned order was passed whereby the defence of petitioners was struck-off and the case was fixed for 03.11.2023 for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. He submits that non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated period is neither intentional nor deliberate. He further submits that, if one opportunity to the present petitioners/defendants is afforded, the written statement will be filed before the learned trial Court on or before the next date of hearing i.e. 15.01.2024, fixed in the civil suit.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The question is as to whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners deserve to be granted any further opportunity for filing of written statement while setting-aside the order passed by the Court below whereby defence of the petitioners was struck-off on account of non-filing of written statement.

5. Comprehensive amendments were made in CPC in the year 2002 in Order 8, Rule 1 CPC. The relevant provision is reproduced below:-

"Written Statement:- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons."

6. Aforesaid provision provides that the defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence, provided that where the defendant fails to file written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same within such further time, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.

7. The issue as to whether the period so provided under Order 8, Rule 1 CPC for filing the written statement is mandatory or directory, came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kailash vs. Nanhku and others 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 379, wherein it was opined that the purpose of amendment is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. This does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time further, as no penal consequences as such have been provided, the provisions being in the domain of the procedural law are not mandatory. However, it was further opined that keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of the civil cases, ordinarily the time schedule should be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way