Judgment

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

The challenge in the instant revision petition is to the order dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa in CS No.742 of 2019 titled as ‘ Krishan Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ’ whereby the defence of the defendants/petitioners has been struck off due to non-filing of the written statement and order dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendants for recalling the order dated 10.01.2020 has also been dismissed.

2. Learned State counsel submits that the defendants appeared for the first time on 26.09.2019 and the matter was adjourned for 03.12.2019 for filing of written statement. On 03.12.2019 another opportunity was granted for filing the written statement but the same was stated to be the last opportunity and the case was adjourned for 10.01.2020 and on 10.01.2020, the impugned order was passed and the defence of the petitioner was struck off. He submits that non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated period is neither intentional nor deliberate. The petitioners/defendants have also filed application for recalling the order dated 10.01.2020 which has also been dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2022. He submits that the next date of hearing before the Trial Court is 19.10.2023 and he shall file the written statement on behalf of petitioners/defendants on that very day.

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 petitioner deserves 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 petitioner 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 v. 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 of exception. The extension of time should not be granted as a matter of routine and merely for asking especially when the time is beyond the period of 90 days. In case any extension is to be granted, the same could be for good reasons to be recorded in writing may be in brief. Relevant paras from the aforesai