STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. Vs. SUKHDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 23.08.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ambala.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

(3.) IT has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that one opportunity was granted by learned trial Court to Petitioners -Defendants to file written statement and that without considering the genuine request of Petitioners, defence of Petitioners was struck off. It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that it has been wrongly observed by learned trial Court that several opportunities were availed by Petitioners -Defendants whereas only one opportunity was granted. It has also been contended that provision of Order 8 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory and the same is only directory. On the point he has placed reliance upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Zolba v. Keshao and Ors.,, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 869 and a judgment of this Court rendered in Mani Chhabra v. Alok Chhabra,, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 257.