IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9186/2008 {Lakhan Lal Meena Versus The Additional District & Sessions Judge & Others} Date of Order :: 5th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. D.P. Pujari for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner is directed against the impugned order dated 5th August, 2008 passed by the trial court, whereby his application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for not taking on record the written statement filed by the defendants has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defendants entered their appearance in the trial court on 16th July, 2004, whereas written statement was filed after a delay of three years i.e. on 21st August, 2008, therefore, the same should not have been taken on record and trial court committed an illegality in rejecting their application filed in this regard. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application. 5. The trial court has observed that it is correct that defendants entered their appearance on 16th July, 2004 but on that day itself they moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the plaint itself. The said application was dismissed by the trial court on 1st August, 2007 and on that day the trial court fixed the case for filing written statement on 21st August, 2007 and on that day itself the defendants filed their written statement, therefore, the written statement was filed within time granted by the court itself. The reasonings given by the trial court for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner appears to be perfectly justified and no interference in the same is called for. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.N. Jadi & Brothers and Others Versus Subhash Chandra {(2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 420} while interpreting the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 and proviso thereto held that these provisions are directory. They do not take away the power of the court to take written statement on record though filed beyond 90 days. They only cast an obligation on defendant to file written statement within the time provided for. 7. In view of above, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK