1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 124 of 2026 Decided on: 7.9.2026 Parveen … Petitioner Versus Avinash …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Sakshi Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate vice Ms. Shivani Kanwar, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) By way of present petition, which has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed order dated 25.2.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 140 of 2025, titled as ‘Avinash versus Parveen’. 2 2. By way of order dated 25.2.2026, the learned trial Court has struck off the defence of the defendant, on account of non-filing of written statement. 3. In this case, the defendant has filed the application under Section 148 of the CPC, which has also been dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 25.2.2026. 4. Considering the true import of the procedural law, this Court is of the view that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, are directory, not mandatory, as admittedly, the present lis is not the commercial suit. 5. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are held to be directory, as held by Hon'ble 'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Vs Nanhku and others, AIR 2005 SC 2441. Relevant paragraph 45(iv) of the judgment, is reproduced as under: "The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision' spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. Though, the language of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non- 3 compliance. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is not completely taken away." 6. Similar view has again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Kalra Versus Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 465. Relevant paragraphs, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:- "Admittedly, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015. Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as 'Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors.' reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable.” 7. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen, in light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and considering the true import of the procedural law, according to which, the present petition is to be decided, after affording opportunity to the opposite party to defend the same, unless the default 4 is pre-dominant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. 8. With these observations, the order dated 25.2.2026 is set aside and the present petition is dismissed, by permitting the defendant to file the written statement, subject to cost of Rs. 6000/- to be paid to the plaintiff. 9. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 10. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. (Virender Singh) 7.9.2026 Judge Kalpana