with the suit, the plaintiff-respondent also filed application for interim stay. On 7.10.2011, counsel for the petitioner-defendant could not appear and the learned court below ordered ex-parte proceedings against her and fixed the case for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff. The petitioner filed application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 7.10.2011, which was allowed vide order dated 22.2.2012 and the case was adjourned to 20.3.2012 for filing of written statement. On 20.3.2012, the petitioner could not attend the court as her daughter was ill and for that reason the written statement could not be filed in court, which resulted into striking off her defence. It was submitted that delay in filing the written statement was not intentional. It was further submitted that evidence of the plaintiff is yet to start. The case is now fixed for 16.8.2012. The prayer is that order dated 20.3.2012 striking off defence of the petitioner be set aside and one opportunity be granted to file the written statement. 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.
