SATNAM SINGH Vs. PARVITA MAHENDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defence of the defendant- petitioner has been struck off vide impugned order dated April 7, 2015 on the ground that within the statutory period of 90 day, the written statement has not been filed without any reasonable explanation. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the interim orders indicating that an application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC was pending for supply of the agreement which was the basis for the dispute. The said application was disposed of on January 17, 2015 and as such there was reasonable ground for permitting the written statement to be placed on record.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of expeditious disposal and to save the unnecessary expenses of the plaintiff-respondent, the present revision petition should be disposed of in limine.

(3.) It is settled proposition of law in Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Dev, 2005 141 PunLR 627 (SC) and Kailash v. Nankhu and others, 2005 141 PunLR 558 (SC) that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are directory and not mandatory and that the extension of time may be allowed if it is noted to be given to the circumstances which are exceptional and occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant or that grave injustice was occasioned if the time was not extended. I am of the considered opinion that a fair opportunity should be given to the defendant-petitioner to file written statement and contest the claim of the plaintiff-respondent on merits, of course, subject to payment of cost to compensate the plaintiff respondent for unnecessary delay caused.