JUDGMENT : INDERJIT SINGH, J. 1. Balwinder Singh alias Balwinder Singh Kamboj-petitioner/defendant No. 1 has filed this civil revision petition against Sat Narain-respondent/plaintiff and Balkar Singh-proforma respondent-defendant No. 2 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 6.10.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, thereby dismissing the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. for striking off the defence of respondent in counterclaim as illegal etc. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 3. From the record, I find that defendant No. 1-applicant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. for striking off the defence of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 in counter-claim. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/defendant No. 1 filed counter-claim with the written statement on 24.3.2012 and as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. the plaintiff has to file written statement in the Court within 30 days from the date of filing the counterclaim and the period of 30 days can be extended by the Court only upto 90 days and that too for the reasons to be recorded in writing by the Court. It has been further alleged that the period of 30 days from the date of filing the counter-claim and even the period of 90 days as stipulated in this order has been elapsed and the plaintiff has not filed the written statement to the counter-claim and as such, he cannot be allowed any further time beyond the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. to file the written statement. It was prayed that the defence of the plaintiff in counter-claim may be struck off. 5. The plaintiff in the reply stated that replication-cum-counter claim and other replies have already been filed and prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar vide order dated 6.10.2012 by discussing the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. and secondly by stating that the reply to the counter-claim has already come on record. It is also held by the Court that the striking of defence is very serious act and it will take away the right of the party. 7. It is also held by the Court that the striking of defence is very serious act and it will take away the right of the party. 7. From the impugned order, I find that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar has correctly appreciated the law laid down in Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab vs. Kumar and Others, (2006) 1 SCC 46 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "9. The text of Order VIII, Rule 1, as it stands now, 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 defence: 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." Order VIII, Rule 1 after the amendment casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. The provision does not deal with the power of the court and also does not specifically take away the power of the court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for. Further, the nature of the provision contained in Order VIII, Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. Substituted Order VIII, Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and petitioners approaching the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the court faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried. 10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried. 10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. 11. The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a Judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer. 12. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. - Justice is the goal of jurisprudence - processual, as much as substantive. (Sushil Kumar Sen vs. State of Bihar, 1975 (1) SCC 774 ). 13. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the Court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. (Blyth vs. Blyth, 1966 (1) All E.R. 524 (HL). A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. (Shreenath and Another vs. Rajesh and Others, AIR 1998 SC 1827 ). 14. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. 15. (Shreenath and Another vs. Rajesh and Others, AIR 1998 SC 1827 ). 14. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. 15. It is also to be noted that though the power of the Court under the proviso appended to Rule 1 of Order VIII is circumscribed by the words - "shall not be later than ninety days" but the consequences flowing from non- extension of time are not specifically provided though they may be read by necessary implication. Merely, because a provision of law is couched in a negative language implying mandatory character, the same is not without exceptions. The courts, when called upon to interpret the nature of the provision, may, keeping in view the entire context in which the provision came to be enacted, hold the same to be directory though worded in the negative form." 8. I have gone through the law laid down in this judgment, which fully applies in the present case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Thappar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 729. In this case written statement was not filed within the limitation under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. and the defendant was permitted to file written statement beyond the period of limitation on payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/-. It was held that Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. The extension may be given for circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Yusuf vs. Faij Mohammed and Others, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 633. In this case, it is held that filing of written statement, the terminology of Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. shows that it is mandatory provision, but the provision is directory in nature, but filing of written statement beyond 90 days should be allowed to avoid extreme hardship and only in rare and exceptional cases. In this case, it is held that filing of written statement, the terminology of Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. shows that it is mandatory provision, but the provision is directory in nature, but filing of written statement beyond 90 days should be allowed to avoid extreme hardship and only in rare and exceptional cases. I have gone through the law laid down in these judgments, which does not apply in the present case. The Court before deciding the application has stated that the reply has already been filed to the counter-claim and the Court held that no ground for striking off the defence is made out. 11. Therefore, keeping view of the law laid down in Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab vs. Kumar and Others (supra), I find that no illegality has been committed by the learned lower Court. The impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar is correct and as per law which does not require any interference from this Court and the same is upheld. 12. Further more, this order has been challenged after about two years. The order has been passed on 6.10.2012 and there is no reason or explanation to explain this delay in filing the revision petition. The procedure has been laid down under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. to expedite the disposal of the case and it has been brought to my notice that till now the issues have not been framed in this case which means that the suit is still pending for decision on some application. The order has already been passed about two years back by stating that the written statement is already on file. Further more, there is nothing in the provision to struck off the defence if the written statement is filed beyond the prescribed period under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. Moreover, these provisions are directory in nature and not mandatory. 13. Therefore, finding no merit in the civil revision petition, the same is dismissed.