IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 09.01.2025 M/s SUNNY FOOTWEAR AND ANR .... Petitioners VERSUS ROHIT VERMA .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Saurav Gumbal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Amrita Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-22474-CII-2024

1. This is an application for preponing the date of hearing of the main petition from 30.04.2025 to some early date.

2. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent states that she has no objection if the present application is allowed.

3. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the date of hearing of the main case is preponed. With the counsel of learned counsel for the parties, the main case is taken on Board today itself.

CR-7730-2023

4. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide which the defendant-petitioners herein had been barred from filing written statement and their defence was struck off for not filing the written statement within a period of 90 days.

5. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondent herein filed a civil suit for recovery of ₹20,00,000 (rupees twenty lakh) as principal amount alleged to have been advanced to defendant- petitioner No.2 along with interest @ 18% per annum. Despite numerous opportunities, the defendant-petitioners failed to file their written statement and eventually their defence was struck off vide impugned order dated

20.01.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would contend that given one opportunity, the defendant-petitioners would file their written statement and that the defendant-petitioners are also willing to compensate the plaintiff-respondent by way of costs.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent has vehemently contended that sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the defendant-petitioners for filing written statement and hence no fault can be found with the impugned order. It is further the contention that these are only delaying tactics which are being adopted by the defendant- petitioners. Learned counsel has relied upon an order dated 16.07.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CR-3800-2024 [Rajinder Prasad Yadav V/s Bhagwan Dass] to contend that once sufficient opportunities are given for filing written statement, no further opportunity ought to have been granted for the same.

8 Heard.

9. It is trite that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC have been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] has held as under :

“ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION

11. At the outset, it must be noted that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 through Section 16 has amended the CPC in its application to commercial disputes to provide as follows:

“16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes.- (1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.

(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value.

(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.”

12. Hence