IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1331 of 2005 (M/S) Arun Kumar … Petitioner Versus Atul Kumar … Respondent Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. In view of the office report dated 25th November, 2009, services upon respondent/plaintiff is deemed to be served. No one appears, nor any counter affidavit has been filed. 2. The defendant has filed the present writ petition, being aggrieved, by the order dated 28th January, 2005, by which the written statement was not brought on record by the trial court. Apparently, the defendant was served with the summons in September 2004 and the written statement was filed on 18th January, 2005 much after 90 days as stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. According to the defendant, there was a delay of 34 days, which has been explained. 3. Having heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the defendant, the Court is of the opinion that the court below committed an error in rejecting the application. The delay was not such, which could not be compensated in terms of the cost. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in catena of decisions that the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C., after the amendment, is still directory in nature and is not mandatory. 2 4. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The trial court is directed to keep the written statement on record on the payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-, which shall be deposited by the defendant before the trial court within four weeks from today. The amount, so deposited, can be withdrawn by the plaintiff without furnishing any security. 5. Certified copy of this order shall be sent by the Registry to the court below within two weeks from today for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 27.12.2011 Aswal