Judgment 1. This application is directed against an order of the Court below rejecting the plaintiffs petition for striking out the defence of the defendant and deciding the suit ex parte. 2. In the suit instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner for removal of the defendant from the suit premises, the defendant appeared on 4-6-1974 with a Vakalatnama and a petition for time to file written statement, immediately on the service of the summons. After taking some further adjournments for filing the written statement, he filed it on 5-8-1974 along with the statement of address. Later on, on 27-11-1974, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order VIII, Rule 11 (Patna Amendment) of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking out the defence on the ground that the defendant did not comply with the requirement of Rule 11 aforesaid, by having failed to furnish "the statement of his address". The learned Subordinate Judge, however, on taking a view that the provision contained in Order VIII, Rule 11 was not mandatory and vested ample discretion, depending on the circumstances of each case, in the Court, has rejected the plaintiffs prayer. 3. Rule 11 was added by the Patna High Court to Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads: "11. Every party, whether original, added or substituted, who appears in any suit or other proceedings shall, at the time of entering appearance to the summons, notice or other process served on him, file in Court a statement stating his address for service and if he fails to do so, he shall be liable to have his defence, if any, struck out and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended. In this respect the Court may act suo motu or on the application of any party for an order to such effect and the Court may make such order as it thinks just." On the basis of the above provision, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as this rule provided that the statement of address is to be filed by the party at the time of entering appearance to the summons, etc., the non-compliance of the said requirement entails a liability on the person to have his defence, if any, struck out and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended. From the facts of this case, it is apparent that the defendant had not literally complied with the above provision and had failed to file the statement in question at the time of his entering appearance. The question arises as to whether on that account, the trial court was bound to strike out his defence. 4. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the concluding part of this rule which provides that "the Court may make such order as it thinks just". From this provision in this rule, it cannot be lawfully contended that the direction contained in the earlier part of this rule for striking out the defence is mandatory. Mr. S.C. Ghose appearing for the petitioner laid much emphasis upon the expression "shall be liable" occurring in this rule and contended that the penalty was intended to be peremptory. I had called for the report of the Civil Justice Committee to find out the reasons for amending Order VIII of the Code and adding Rule 11 aforesaid thereto, but unfortunately it could not be made available. 5. Somewhat similar provisions have been made by various other High Courts in India, but no decision of any High Court was brought to my notice at the Bar where this provision had fallen for consideration. Reference in this connection however may be made to some other provisions contained in Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with a plaint. To this Order also, the Patna High Court has added certain rules. Rules 19 and 20 require that every plaint is to be accompanied by a statement giving address and other informations in that respect. Rule 21 provides that the failure on the part of the plaintiff would make him liable "to have his suit dismissed ......., and the Court may make such order as it thinks just". Although no direct decision of any High Court was brought to my notice where the provision of Order VII either had fallen for consideration, a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Gouri Kumari Devi V/s. Commr. Although no direct decision of any High Court was brought to my notice where the provision of Order VII either had fallen for consideration, a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Gouri Kumari Devi V/s. Commr. of Income-tax, ( AIR 1960 Pat 270 ) dealing with the provision of Order VI, Rule 14 of the Code requiring every pleading to be signed by the party and his pleader, held that the failure on the part of the plaintiff was a mere irregularity which can be subsequently rectified and the omission was not a vital defect. On the same principle, it can be very well said that the failure to file the statement of address was a mere irregularity and for this omission a "capital punishment" cannot and should not be imposed. It appears that a provision almost similar to that, as contained in Rule 11 of Order VIII of the Code, is also provided by the Lahore High Court, and the rule fell for consideration in that High Court on two occasions, namely, in the case of Municipal Committee, Lahore V/s. Kesho Ram, (AIR 1929 Lah 459) and Joti Ram V/s. (Firm) Beli Ram Barkat Ram, (AIR 1935 Lah 791). Repelling a similar argument that the provision contained in Rule 11 for striking out the defence was mandatory, it was held that it was not so and leaves ample discretion in the Court to make such order as it thinks just. 6. In my considered opinion, also the provisions contained in Order VIII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not intend that in all cases the Court was bound, as a matter of course, to strike out the defence of the defendant if the statement of address is not submitted at the requisite time. As it has been well said that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. Even assuming that the requirement to file statement of address is mandatory, as observed by the Lahore High Court, the second part of the rule regarding striking out of the defence, is not mandatory and leaves a discretion in the Court to pass appropriate order on taking into consideration various facts and circumstances of each case. Even assuming that the requirement to file statement of address is mandatory, as observed by the Lahore High Court, the second part of the rule regarding striking out of the defence, is not mandatory and leaves a discretion in the Court to pass appropriate order on taking into consideration various facts and circumstances of each case. For example, if no prejudice or any harm was caused or has resulted to the plaintiff from the non-filing of the statement of address and the case goes on normally, it was not incumbent on the Court to strike out the defence. It may get the defect removed and at the same time may impose an alternative penalty under the powers already contemplated under the rule itself, namely,- "the court may make such order as it thinks just." 7. For the aforesaid reasons I am of the opinion, that the learned Subordinate Judge came to a correct conclusion. I would, accordingly, dismiss this application; but shall make no order as to costs.