JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral): - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 3.3.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rewari, vide which defence of the petitioners has been struck off. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court and various zimni orders placed on record. 3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that initially the suit was filed against Ram Narain, father of petitioners no.1 to 6 and husband of petitioner no.7, who expired during pendency of the suit and hence, petitioners were brought on record as his legal heirs. Counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners on 11.11.2010 and the case was adjourned for filing written statement for 7.12.2010 and then for 1.2.2011, when the Bar was on strike, and hence the case was adjourned for the same purpose for 3.3.2011, when the impugned order was passed. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that counsel for the petitioners in trial Court did not inform them that it was last date for filing written statement and hence, they could not provide all the necessary documents to the counsel, as after death of Ram Narain, they were to locate the requisite documents. It is further contended that moreover on 1.12.2011, only proxy counsel appeared and he did not inform the counsel for the petitioner about the fact that last opportunity was granted for filing written statement. It is also contended that provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) is directory and not mandatory. 5. Hence, in view of these facts, though more than 90 days has expired since appearance of petitioners before learned trial Court and no written statement was filed within the prescribed period of 90 days, as provided under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code, however, in view of the peculiar facts of this case, as original defendant has expired and petitioners are his legal heirs, one opportunity can be granted to them and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. 6. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. 6. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to file written statement subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. 7. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:- “ We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner- Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” 8. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revision petition revived if he feels dissatisfied with this order. ----------0BSK0----------