JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, CJ. (Oral): Vide the impugned order dated 11th May, 2004, the learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Court No. 3), Shimla has struck off the defence of the petitioner-defendant by exercising its power/jurisdiction in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure since, as per the contents of the impugned order, the petitioner-defendant having been served with the summons for appearance on 14th January, 2004, he filed the written statement on 23rd April, 2004, i.e. beyond the period of 90 days, as prescribed in Order 8 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 1 reads as under :- "1. Written statement. - The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defense: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons." 2. Rule 10 of Order 8 clearly stipulates that where any party from whom a written statement is required in terms of Rule 1 fails to present the same within the time permitted, the court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. Rule 10 is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference, which reads thus:- "10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court. - Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn UP" 3. It is apparently in purported exercise of the power under Rule 10 (supra) that the learned trial court has struck off the defence of the petitioner-defendant because according to it the written statement was not filed within the outer limit of 90 days from the date of service of summons upon him. 4. It is apparently in purported exercise of the power under Rule 10 (supra) that the learned trial court has struck off the defence of the petitioner-defendant because according to it the written statement was not filed within the outer limit of 90 days from the date of service of summons upon him. 4. The learned trial Court in the course of the impugned order has observed that the service of summons was effected upon the petitioner-defendant on 14th January, 2004. I have seen the summons in original from the record of the trial Court and find that it was issued on 14th January, 2004 under the signatures of Superintendent Grade- 11 in the office of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Court No. 3), Shimla. Apparently bearing despatch No. 78 the document seems to have left the office of Superintendent, Grade-ll on 15th January, 2004. On the back of the summons, the petitioner-defendant has put his signatures and underneath the signature is mentioned the date which is 19th January, 2004. One Ranjit Singh, apparently a Process-Server has given his report on the back of the summons to the effect of his having completed the task of effecting the service upon the petitioner-defendant and the date underneath the signatures of Ranjit Singh also is 19th January, 2004. It, therefore, clearly transpires, beyond any iota of doubt that the service upon the petitioner was effected only on 19th January, 2004 and, therefore, the learned trial Court has wrongly and incorrectly mentioned the date of service as being 14th January, 2004. As already noticed, since the summons left the office of the Superintendent Grade II only on 15th January, 2004 as it was despatched on that date vide despatch No. 78, there is no question of the service having been effected on 14th January, 2004. This is one aspect of the matter. 5. By issuing the summons on 14th January, 2004 and dispatching it on 15th January, 2004, the learned trial Court called the petitioner-defendant to appear in the Court on 21st April, 2004, the date it had fixed in the suit for the appearance of the parties. By any calculation, starting from 14th January, 2004, 21st April, 2004 was well beyond even 100 days whereas under Order 8 Rule 1, the maximum, period prescribed for filing of the written statement is 90 days from the date of service of the summons. By any calculation, starting from 14th January, 2004, 21st April, 2004 was well beyond even 100 days whereas under Order 8 Rule 1, the maximum, period prescribed for filing of the written statement is 90 days from the date of service of the summons. Why did the trial Court fix such a long date, creating a gap of almost 100 days has not either been understood or appreciated by me. It is a well known practice, a common tendency that illiterate or uninformed and rustic litigants normally turn to their Advocates or without sometime engaging the Advocates, attend the Courts personally only on the dates fixed for their first appearance in the Courts. It is perhaps in this background that I have no reason to disbelieve that the petitioner-defendant contacted his Advocate only on 21st April, 2004, because that being a common practice, "a normal tendency, he went to his Advocate on the date fixed requesting him to attend the Court on that date. By then the period of 90 days had already expired. It is because of this long gap of 100 days that the petitioner defendant was prevented from filing the written statement. It was because of the reasons beyond his control, i therefore, that he failed to file the written statement within the period I prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is one of the rarest of the rare cases and is a fit one where this court should exercise its indulgence and exercising its power under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure extend/enlarge the period for filing written statement upto 23rd April, 2004, the date when it was actually filed in the Court. 6. 6. By way of abundant caution, I wish to direct that in future, the Courts while issuing summonses for first appearance and fixing dates of appearance for the parties should bear in mind that longer gap should be avoided as for as possible and in any event the dates fixed for the first appearance of the parties should be well within the limit of 90 days catering to a situation where illiterate or uninformed and rustic litigants, not aware of the fatal consequence following from Order 8 Rule 1, may still need some time to contact counsel, to make preparation for readying their defence so that they are able to file the written statement well within the dead line fixed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I accordingly direct that copies of this judgment should be circulated to all the Courts in the State of Himachal Pradesh for their information and necessary compliance. 7. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs. The record of the trial Court be sent back to the learned trial Court immediately and forthwith. 8. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 11th January, 2005.