Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that written statement could not be filed on the date fixed for the reason that the case was still at service stage. The petitioners had put in their appearance only on 12.10.2009 on which date the case was adjourned to 29.10.2009 for filing written statement. On the adjourned date, the case was again adjourned on the request of counsel for the petitioners for 24.11.2009. The defence of the petitioners was struck off on 21.1.2010 by the learned court below on technical ground that 90 days had already elapsed after their service. He further submitted that no effective proceedings have taken place after the passing of the impugned order. He has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kailash vs Nanhku and others , JT 2005(4) SC 204; Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India , JT 2005(6) SC 486 and M/s R. N. Jadi and Brothers and others v. Subhashchandra , JT 2007(9) SC 165 to submit that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory.
