WPMS 262/2007 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Bailwal, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. The defendant filed the written statement after more than six and a half months. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. praying that since the written statement was filed beyond the stipulated period of 90 days, the said written statement should be rejected. This application of the petitioner was rejected and the written statement was taken on record, against which, the plaintiff filed a revision, which was also dismissed. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions starting from Kailash vs. Nanku and others, AIR 2005 (4) SCC 480 and Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 held that the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. is directory in nature and is not mandatory. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the decision exercised by the trial court. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. 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 SP