IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.07.2025 Raja Singh ....Petitioner Versus M/s Sohan Singh and Sons Commission Agents ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Rohan Garg, Advocate for Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divij Dutt, Advocate for the respondent.

****

VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant/petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby the defence of the petitioner has been struck off and he has been proceeded against ex parte.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,68,133/- (Rs.4,73,453/- as principal and Rs.94,680/- as interest at the rate of 1% per month from 14.11.2021 to

14.07.2023).

3. Upon notice of the suit, the petitioner/defendant put in appearance on 30.09.2023 and the hearing was deferred to 03.01.2024 for filing the written statement, which was further adjourned to 10.01.2024, when the impugned order was passed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (Dead) through Proposed Legal Representative Ms. Rohini, (2020) 2 SCC 708, to contend that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'CPC'), have been held to be directory in nature in the case of non commercial suits. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that one opportunity be granted to the defendant/petitioner to file the written statement on the date already fixed before the trial Court.

5. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent would contend that despite due opportunity having been granted to the petitioner, he failed to file the written statement or put in appearance before the trial Court that led to passing of the impugned order dated 10.01.2024. It is further contended that the interlocutory order dated 30.09.2023, appended with the revision petition, is incorrect as it pertains to some other case. However, in all fairness, he further submits that an incorrect order has been uploaded on the website and as such, apparently the one available online has been appended with the revision petition. He would further point out that on 30.09.2023, the defendant had put in appearance through counsel and the hearing was adjourned to 30.11.2023 for filing the written statement, whereafter the proceedings were further deferred to 03.01.2024 and thereafter, adjourned to

10.01.2024, when the impugned order was passed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook with their able assistance.

7. In the instant case, the facts are not in dispute. A perusal of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC reveals that it cast an obligation upon the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of him being served or within the extended time, but not later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. The said provision does not speak of the power of the Court nor explicitly restricts the Court’s jurisdiction to accept the written statement filed beyond the time stipulated in the aforesaid provision. In Des Raj’s case (supra) a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also examined the timeline for filing of written statement and held that in a non-commercial dispute matter, the unamended provision of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the Courts to condone delay.

8. In Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Krishan Chhabra, 2022 SCC Online 613, and while placing reliance upon Kailash vs. Nanko and others, (2005) 4 SCC 480, the Apex Court held that the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory