RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present petition is to the order dated August 31, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula whereby defence of petitioner/defendant no. 3 was struck off.
(2.) FOR the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents as the same would unnecessarily delay not only disposal of the present petition but the suit as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant no. 3 submitted that respondent no. 1/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration in the trial Court on January 2, 2007 and petitioner/defendant no. 3 appeared after receipt of notice on May 31, 2007. However, reply to the plaint could not be filed within time due to non receipt of the copy of plaint alongwith summons. He submitted that in case one opportunity is granted to petitioner/defendant no. 3, it will file written statement on the date to be fixed by the trial Court.
(3.) AS far as the period prescribed for filing the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, is concerned, the same has been held to be directory in nature by judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and others, 2005(2) RCR(Civil) 379 (SC) and Surender Singh and others v. Omvati and others, 2005(3) RCR(Civil) 786 (P&H). It is further held therein that in exceptional circumstances the Court can extend time beyond 90 days for filing written statement so as to avoid injustice being caused to the parties.;