*1* 49.wp.1330.11 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1330 OF 2011 Pravin Vishwanath Kondewar ..Petitioner -Versus- Avinash Tukaram Nalbilwar & Anr. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Amit M. Shete for the Petitioner. Mr.Ajay Joshi for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. .......... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 8th July 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for setting aside “No Written Statement” came to be rejected and the order dated 13th October 2010 vide which an application Exh.18 in Regular Civil Suit No.7 of 2009 for review of the order dated 8th July 2010 came to be rejected. 2 After receipt of the suit summons the petitioner appeared on 7th February 2009. Since for a period of 5 months and 21 days, the petitioner had not filed the written statement, “No Written Statement” order came to *2* 49.wp.1330.11 be passed on 8th July 2009. Thereafter, the appellant almost after a period of two months, on 7th September 2009, filed an application for setting aside “No Written Statement”. The same was rejected. Hence the present petition. 3 Mr.Shete, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court in the interest of justice ought to have allowed the application. He submits that if the written statement is not permitted to be placed on record grave and irreparable injury would be cause to him. As against this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the petitioner has not given any sufficient cause for not filing the written statement within a stipulated period and as such, no interference is warranted. 4 The amended provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC requires that the written statement should be filed within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the suit summons and thereafter within an extended period of 90 days, the Court can permit the written statement to be taken on record for the reasons recorded in the written statement. No doubt that the said provision has been held to be directory and not mandatory. However, as held by the Apex Court in case of “R.N.Jadi & Brothers & Ors Vs. Subhashchandra, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 420, the jurisdiction to permit *3* 49.wp.1330.11 the written statement to be accepted beyond a period of 90 days has to be exercised in an exceptional and compelling circumstances and and as a matter of routine. In the present case, apart from the vague allegation that on account of non-receipt of the papers from the lawyer engaged in the said suit, the written statement could not be filed, there is nothing to justify the such an inordinate delay. 5 In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction exercised by the learned trial Court has been exercised in perverse manner to warrant interference. 6 The writ petition is rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ]