The time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is directory and procedural, allowing courts to grant extensions in the interest of substantial justice to prevent serious prejudice to a party's defense.

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner-defendant, by way of present revision petition, seeks setting aside of the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ferozepur (hereinafter to be referred as “trial Court”), in Civil Suit No. 535 of 2017, titled “Mehmoodi Versus Anish”, whereby the defence of the petitioner has been struck off.

2. Facts leading to the present case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit with a prayer for decree for possession by way of specific performance directing defendant No.1(respondent No.2 herein) to execute the sale deed and get the same registered in favour of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein). Upon notice, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court through her counsel on 21.02.2023 (as averred in the petition at para-3); however, despite having been granted sufficient opportunities, no written statement was filed and resultantly, their defence was ordered to be struck off by the trial Court vide order dated 21.09.2024.

3. Impugning the aforesaid order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the learned trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mistake regarding non-filing of the written statement at the instance of petitioner has occurred primarily on account of some communication gap as the petitioner had sold out the suit land to defendant No.3 and thus, the counsel representing the petitioner before the trial Court intimated him not to appear as the same was not necessary. He further submits that in the absence of any defence being put-forth by way of filing a written statement, the petitioner will not be able to defend the suit in an effective manner which definitely will cause serious prejudice to her rights therein.

4. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and perusing the paper-book as well as the zimni orders passed by the trial Court, which has been annexed with the petition, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

5. In the humble opinion of this Court, in case, the impugned order is allowed to stand and the petitioner will be deprived of her right to file written statement, she will not be able to put-forth her defence to the case set up by the respondents-plaintiffs in the suit. Though, there appears to be a lack of due diligence on the part of petitioner while contesting the suit, however, considering the fact that ever since the passing of the impugned order, the proceedings in the suit have not moved further, as such, it would be in the interest of justice to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner, so as to file written statement in order to protect her substantial rights involved in the suit.

6. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Kailash Vs. Nanhku and ors. ”, 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 379, while considering the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, has held that the same is part of procedural law and hence directory in nature. Still further, keeping in view the substantial justice, the Hon’ble Supreme Court under somewhat similar circumstances, in “ Siddalingayya Vs. Gurulingappa and ors. ”, 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 543, upheld the opportunity of filing written statement granted by the High Court. Even otherwise, upholding of the impugned order will cause serious prejudice to the rights of petitioner as she will not be a