JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Defendant Sandeep Kumar has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 03.11.2011, (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, thereby striking off defence of the petitioner for not filing written statement. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 3. Counsel for the petitioner prays that only one opportunity of short duration may be granted to the defendant-petitioner for filing written statement, on payment of cost. 4. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. 5. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that defendant-petitioner put in appearance through counsel in the trial court on 23.05.2011 and availed of five opportunities, spread over more than five months, for filing written statement, but did not file the same till 03.11.2011, when the trial court was forced to pass the impugned order. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that the defendant has to file written statement within 30 days, but not later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. The said provision, being rule of procedure, may be observed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. In the instant case, however, instead of period of 90 days, the defendant was granted period of more than five months for filing written statement. So, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned order. It is manifest that the defendant is intentionally delaying the proceedings of the suit by not filing the written statement. This intention of defendant-petitioner is manifest also from the fact that even the instant revision petition has been filed three months after the passing of the impugned order. 6. Having said as aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that defendant-petitioner may be granted another opportunity to file written statement, subject to payment of very heavy cost. He has to be subjected to heavy cost because of his lapses noticed in the preceding paragraph. The suit is for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- and the same has to be kept in mind while assessing the quantum of cost. 7. I am granting another opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to file written statement because otherwise, the impugned order would prove very harsh for the defendant-petitioner and he may lose the case by default. 8. The suit is for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- and the same has to be kept in mind while assessing the quantum of cost. 7. I am granting another opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to file written statement because otherwise, the impugned order would prove very harsh for the defendant-petitioner and he may lose the case by default. 8. I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice thereof to plaintiff-respondent so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the plaintiff-respondent of the expenses he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the purpose of this revision petition, if notice thereof is issued to him. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. The trial court is directed to grant another opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to file written statement, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as cost precedent. The petitioner shall file written statement in the trial court by moving application within 15 days from today. ------------