LABHA SINGH Vs. TEJO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order dated 12.12.2005, for want of filing of written statement within stipulated period, defence of the petitioner was struck off. Counsel states that when order, under challenge, was passed, the matter was still fixed for service on other respondents and under that impression, his counsel failed to file the written statement, which otherwise, was ready with him. Counsel further states that the written statement, which is ready, shall be filed within 15 days from today before the Court below. This Court feels that it is a case where one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to place on record his written statement. Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it.

(2.) THEIR Lordships of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs And others v. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) dead) by L. Rs. and others, (2003)3 SCC 272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under :

(3.) IN Kailash v. Nanhku and ors., 2005(2) RCR(Civil) 379 and Smt. Rani Kusum v. Smt. Kanchan Devi and ors., 2005(3) RCR(Civil) 727, it has been held by their Lordships of Supreme Court that provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC are directory and not mandatory in nature.