JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh Sood, J. - This petition is directed against the orders of the learned District Judge, Shimla, dated 3rd October, 2001 whereby the defence of the defendants was struck off on the ground that written statement was not filed. 2. It appears, when the matter came up before the learned District Judge on 3rd October, 2001, an application on behalf of the defendant-petitioners was filed for an opportunity to file written statement on the ground that they could not file the written statement as the plaintiff-Corporation had taken over the possession of the house of defendant No. 2 only two days prior to that date and that they were not in possession of their belongings. It was stated that even the relevant record for the purpose of preparing written statement was in possession of the plaintiff-Financial Corporation. The plea of the defendants did not find favour with the learned District Judge, who recorded: "Since the defendants had ample time of one month to procure the record and get the written statement drafted after the last date of hearing and as no affidavit has been filed in support of the application, it is difficult to grant the plea of the defendants. So the defence of the defendants is hereby struck off." 3. Apparent as it is the learned District Judge failed to consider the submission of the defendants that their house has been taken over by the plaintiff-Corporation alongwith the relevant record which was required to prepare the written statement and therefore, their written statement could not be prepared. 4. Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to grant time to the parties or to anyone of them and adjourn the hearing of the suit from time to time provided sufficient cause for such adjournment for the grant of such time is shown by the concerned party. 5. In my view, the defendants disclosed, in their application, sufficient cause to seek adjournment, particularly when these allegations were not controverted by the opposite party. In such matters the approach of the Court should not be pedantic, hypertechnical and above all punitive. The Court should invariably decide the matters before them on merits rather than on hypertechnical grounds. 6. The impugned order of the learned District Judge does not stand the test of legal scrutiny and is liable to be set aside. 7. In such matters the approach of the Court should not be pedantic, hypertechnical and above all punitive. The Court should invariably decide the matters before them on merits rather than on hypertechnical grounds. 6. The impugned order of the learned District Judge does not stand the test of legal scrutiny and is liable to be set aside. 7. The petition is allowed. The order dated 3rd October, 2001 is set aside. The petitioner-defendants shall be entitled to file written statement within four weeks from today. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 4th April, 2002. 9. The record of the case shall be remitted back to the learned District Judge immediately. The revision petition is disposed of. CWP No. 10 of 2002. 10. No order, as the main petition has been disposed of. The stay granted by this Court on 9th January, 2002 stands vacated. The application is disposed of.