JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)

The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant impugning the order dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar in CIS No.76 of 2019, whereby defence of the petitioner/defendant has been struck off for non-filing of written statement despite availing several opportunities and the case was adjourned for 23.08.2023 for evidence of the plaintiff, which is now fixed for hearing for 29.09.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a old lady of 74 years of age and residing in Amritsar with her family. The suit where she has been arrayed as a defendant has been filed by the plaintiff at Jalandhar. Due to health issues, the petitioner could not file the written statement within the time granted by the learned Trial Court. He submits that non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated period is neither intentional nor deliberate. He seeks one last opportunity to file the written statement on behalf of the petitioner/defendant.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 aforesaid judgment are extracted below:-

"45(i) to (iii) x x x x

(iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time