1 wp 6948.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6948 OF 2011 Sheshabai Vikrama Mutkule .. Petitioner Versus Limbaji Vikrama Mutkule and others .. Respondents Shri S. V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed suit for partition and separate possession. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were served on 01 st March, 2011 and other defendants were served in the month of February 2011. On 16.06.2011 an application filed by the defendants for acceptance of written statement was rejected. Thereafter on 21.07.2011 the application was filed by the defendants and signed by the defendant No. 1 to set aside the no written statement order and to accept the written statement. The Trial Court allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Suryawanshi, the learned counsel contends that the 2 wp 6948.11 written statement has been accepted after 90 days. No sufficient cause is stated for non filing of written statement within the stipulated period. Even earlier application was rejected. For the same purpose such second application could not have been entertained. Though the application for setting aside no written statement order was filed by only one defendant, the written statement is filed by all the defendants and same should not have been accepted. 3. The suit is a substantive suit for partition and separate possession, wherein status of each and every party is that of plaintiff. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 are directory in nature. Even it would be seen that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were served on 01 st March, 2011 and the written statement is filed on 21 st July, 2011. There is not much delay in filing the written statement. Though it can be said that the same is not filed within the stipulated period, the Court has exercised the discretion in accepting the written statement. The said exercise of discretion cannot be said to be perverse. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11