IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15592 of 2010 1. HIRA LAL SAH S/O LATE LAKHAN SAH R/O VILL +P.O.+P.S.MAJHAULIA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 2. SHEOJI SAH S/O HIRALAL SAH R/O VILL +P.O.+P.S.MAJHAULIA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. BALI RAM SAH S/O LATE CHANDRA SAH R/O VILL +P.O.+P.S.MAJHAULIA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 2. RAM CHANDRA SAH S/O LATE MAHANDRA SAH R/O MOH DUMARIA PARSA, P.S.MAJHAULIA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 03. 03.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 9.7.2009 in Title Suit No. 243 of 2007, passed by Sub-Judge-III, West Champaran, Bettiah the defendant petitioner has been debarred for filing his written statement. Learned counsel submits that the adequate grounds have been furnished for the reasons of delay in filing of the written statement. The impugned order notices that the petitioner in response to the summons appears on 15.5.2008, but filed his written statement nearly one year thereafter. The defence of the petitioner that he was unable to do so for illness has been considered and rejected by a reasoned order holding that he has not brought on record any material in support of the same to prima facie support and convince the Court. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 have been held to be directory. The directory effect shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case to be balanced with 2 the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the defendant put forth an explanation and that has not found acceptance by the court below for reasons discussed, with regard to an unreasonable delay, merely because another view may be possible by this Court, shall not be sufficient to invoke powers of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when there has been no procedural infirmity in exercise of jurisdiction by the court below. Predicament of the petitioner is his own creation and it is for him to find the answer as to why he unnecessarily delayed filing of his written statement for nearly one year. Even in the pleadings of the writ application no details have been annexed with regard to the nature of illness, the duration and manner of treatment all of which may have necessitated the delay. In the entirety, this Court finds no infirmity calling for interference. The application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)