JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.(Oral) :- It appears, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5000/- alongwith interest before the learned Senior Sub Judge. Shimla. Defendant on 21st December 1998 filed written statement on behalf of the defendant slating that for shortage of time and to cut short the litigation defendant submitted "short written statement" restricting it only to the preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court with a further prayer that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for a presentation of the same before an appropriate Court. 2. The defendant chose not to file his written statement on the merits of the case or to controvert the allegations made in the plaint. On 12th January. 2000 learned Sub Judge-(5). Shimla. to whom the case was entrusted for disposal, settled several issues on the pleadings of the parties including on merits. The case was directed to be listed for the evidence of the plaintiff. On 30th May. 2000. defendant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure , for the amendment of the written statement stating therein that the defendant had filed only a "short written statement" confining to the preliminary objection regarding the territorial of the Court to hear the matter. The written statement on merits was not filed under the bonafide belief that the Court shall "decide the case on the short ground of jurisdiction without going into the merits of the case by framing a preliminary issue and deciding the same on that short ground alone". This application was contested by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that defendant had filed a written statement confining himself to the jurisdiction of the Court and chose not to deny the facts and allegations in the plaint in terms of Order 8 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which would amount to admissions of the facts and allegations and therefore, the defendant cannot be permitted to amend his written statement to wriggle out of the admission so made. 3. The learned trial Judge vide impugned order rejected the application observing that there was no provision in the law to file short written statement raising only preliminary objection. The defendant learned trial Judge held, should have filed complete written statement on merits. 3. The learned trial Judge vide impugned order rejected the application observing that there was no provision in the law to file short written statement raising only preliminary objection. The defendant learned trial Judge held, should have filed complete written statement on merits. The learned trial Court also noticed that the defendant has not specified in his application as to what amendment in the written statement was to be made and proceeded to dismiss this application. 4. Relevant provisions of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the filing of written statement may be noticed. 5. Rule-1 of Order-8 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates the filing of the written statement in or before the first date of hearing or within such time as the Court may permit. 6. Rule-2 of Order-8 provides that defendant must raise, by his pleading, all matters and all such grounds of defence as. if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise. 7. Rule-3 of Order-8 stipulates that defendant must specifically deal with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit. 8. Rule-4 of Order-8 further provides that where the defendant intends to deny an allegation of the fact in the plaint, he must do so by specific denial and not evasively. 9. Rule-5 of Order-8 provides that if the allegations are not specifically denied, it shall be taken to be admitted. 10. A careful perusal of the provisions noticed above shows that there is no provision for the filing of "short written statement". It is incumbent upon the defendant to file complete written statement in, terms of Rules 2 to 5 of Order 8 noticed above. If it is not done, rigors of Rule 5 shall apply with all its force and Court would be within its jurisdiction to proceed with the case, accordingly. 11. Even if a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case arises and is raised, it is necessary for the defendant to file his complete written statement and specifically deny an allegation of fact which he does not admit. However, it is open to the defendant to request the Court under Rule 2(2) of Order 14 of the Code to decide the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Court first. However, it is open to the defendant to request the Court under Rule 2(2) of Order 14 of the Code to decide the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Court first. It would also be open to the defendant to request the Court to postpone the settlement of other issues until the issue of jurisdiction is determined. 12. In view of the legal position noticed above, an application for amendment of the written statement was not maintainable. The defendant, however, was not remediless. Defendant could have invoked jurisdiction of the learned trial Court under Rule-9 of Ordei-8 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides for the filing of additional written statement or written statement, if not filed. Rule-9 of Order-8 reads: "Subsequent pleadings. - No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off (or counter-claim) shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit. but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same". 13. A bare perusal of this provision shows that though no pleading subsequent to the written statement of the defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off can be presented, however, the Court is empowered to allow filing of written statement or additional written statement and may fix terms for the same. 14. Having said that I am of the view that the cases should be decided on merits and not on technicalities. The defendant, in my view, should not suffer because his counsel decided to file only short written statement. 15. In the facts and circumstances of this case. I allow this petition and permit the defendant to file written statement in respect of the various averments made in the plaint in accordance with law! subject to the payment of Rs.500/- as costs which shall be paid before f the trial Court on the next date of hearing. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the defendant had claimed set off which he now cannot claim in view of the provisions of Rule-6 of Order-8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I need not go into this question. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the defendant had claimed set off which he now cannot claim in view of the provisions of Rule-6 of Order-8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I need not go into this question. It will be open to the plaintiff to raise this objection before the learned trial court regarding the maintainability of the plea for set off. 17. The revision petition is. Accordingly disposed of. 18. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 18th April. 2002. There will be no order as to costs. The record is sent for immediately.