JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral). - C.M.No.20784-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5181 of 2011 2. Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 4.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, vide which defence of petitioner-defendant was struck off on account of failure of filing written statement. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitionerdefendant that in this case counsel for the petitioner appeared before learned trial Court on 18.4.2011 and the case was adjourned for 3.6.2011 when vakalatnama was filed by counsel for the petitioner and the case was adjourned for 4.8.2011 for filing written statement. It is further contended that due to negligence of counsel for the petitioner, written statement could not be prepared earlier and, however, petitioner being an old man of 72 years of age fell ill on 3.8.2011 and he had to be hospitalised and remained admitted in Anand Hospital, Commercial Complex, Sector 56, Gurgaon from 3.8.2011 to 7.8.2011. Hence, it is contended that on 4.8.2011 petitioner was admitted in the hospital and this fact was brought to the notice of the Court and, however, another opportunity for filing written statement was not granted. It is also contended that provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directory in nature and not mandatory. 5. Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. 6. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-defendant to file written statement subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. 7. Disposed of accordingly. 8. 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. 7. Disposed of accordingly. 8. 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 Coop 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.” 9. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revision petition revived if he feels dissatisfied with this order. ----------0BSK0----------