IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 03.11.2008. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1642/2006 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Rameshwar Sharma, for the petitioner. Shri Virendra Dave, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 28.1.2006 the learned trial court has dismissed the application filed by the defendant for being permitted to file the written statement beyond period of 90 days. Along with the application under order 8 rule 1 CPC an application under Section 148 was also filed. It is now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of order 8 rule 1 CPC which require the filing of the written statement are not mandatory but are directory. The learned lower appellate court has the jurisdiction to the extent period for filing the written statement if sufficient cause is made out. It is submitted that the original defendant was one Mangal Ram who died and thereafter the present petitioner being his widow and minor son were substituted in place of Mangal Ram. The learned trial court had fixed the date on 7.5.2005 for filing written statement on which date the petitioner No.1 who is the widow of Mangal Ram deceased defendant fell ill and could not contact her counsel and could not come to the court and thereafter on the said date the learned trial court passed the order closing the defence of the petitioner. On the subsequent date an application along with affidavit and medical certificate were filed but the learned trial court declined the prayer of the defendant petitioner for being permitted to file the written statement holding that then period provided by law had expired. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the crucial question in the facts and circumstances of the present case is whether the defendant petitioner were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the written statement on 7.5.2005 the date fixed for filing the written statement. The learned trial court has dismissed the application and has taken into account the previous conduct of the defendant for dismissing the same and not the reason for not being able to file the written statement of the date fixed. In the facts and circumstances therefore I am of the view that the learned court below has committed jurisdictional error by referring to the previous conduct alone and not considering the reasons stated in the application for not having filed the written statement on 7.5.2005. There also appears to be an error or jurisdiction inasmuch as the application Annexure-2 which was filed on 8.7.2005 along with an affidavit showing in ability to prevent the written statement on the date fixed on medical grounds which ought to have been taken into account and permission could be granted. In the facts and circumstances I am inclined to allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned order and direct that the learned trial court shall take on record the written statement which was filed along with application dated 8.7.2005. Subject to the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The interim order is vacated. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS