IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 506 of 2009 (M / S) Ganesh Dutt Joshi S/o Sri Laxmi Dutt Joshi R/o Village Naugawa Thaggu Bhujia No. 3 Pilibhit Road, Khatima, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Plaintiff / Petitioner Versus 1. Ramesh Singh Rana S/o Ganga Singh Rana R/o Village Naugawa Thaggu Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Presently resided at Near Telephone Exchange Village Bhuramohalia Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Mukundi Lal Mittal S/o unknown R/o Forest Corporation, Pilibhit Road, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Defendant / Respondents Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. [ Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate present for the petitioners. 2) Heard. 3) By means of this petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.11.2007, passed by trial 2 court (Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khatima) in Civil Suit No. 86 of 2005 and order dated 03.03.2009, passed by the revisional court (Addl. District Judge / III Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar), in Civil Revision No. 57 of 2007. 4) Learned counsel for the plaintiff / petitioner argued that the trial court has erred in law in admitting the written statement of the defendant. It is submitted that affirmation of the order passed by the trial court by the revisional court is erroneous in law. It is contended that the written statement was filed by the defendant at a highly belated stage in violation of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff / petitioner and after going through the impugned orders, passed by the courts below, in view of the principle of law laid down in Kailash Vs. Nanku; (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 480, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the courts below. The Apex court has already held that proviso to Order VIII Rule 1, is directive in nature and in the appropriate cases written statement can be admitted after expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summons. The revisional court vide its impugned order dated 03.03.2001, after discussing position of law and the circumstances in which the written statement has been filed at a belated stage, rightly dismissed the revision 3 upholding the acceptance of written statement and further directed that the defendant shall pay Rs. 800/- as costs. 6) Therefore, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 2563 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 06, 2009. H. Negi