1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2658/2008. Chaturbhuj Sharma and Others. VERSUS Civil Judge (JD), Jaipur City (West), Jaipur and Others. 06.04.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Rajendra Prasad, for the petitioners. Mr.Vinod Sharma, for the respondents. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The facts, in brief, are that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents against the defendants- petitioners for which the summons were served upon the defendants-petitioners for their appearance on 10.02.2004. The matter was taken up by the learned trial court on 11.02.2004 on which date the time was allowed to the defendants-petitioners for filing the written statement. It may be noticed that the period of 90 days is provided for the same. This period for filing the written statement expired admittedly on 10.05.2004. In the instant case, however, when the case was taken up on 10.03.2004 it was adjourned for filing the written statement of the defendants for 20.05.2004. On 20.05.2004 the written statement was not filed, as would be evident from the ordersheets which is 2 available as Annexure-5 in the writ petition. On 20.05.2004 since the Presiding Officer was not present, the case was adjourned to 07.07.2004 for filing the written statement of the defendants- petitioners. On 07.07.2004 also the written statement was not filed and an application was submitted to the effect that a close relative of the counsel for the petitioners Shri M.I.Khan had died. Shri M.I.Khan did not attend the court and it was not possible for the defendants to file the written statement though the same was ready. The next date was fixed as 22.07.2004 on which date the petitioners submitted their written statement along with an application. The learned trial court by the impugned order has rejected the application submitted by the petitioners and allowed the application submitted by the plaintiffs objecting to the written statement being taken on record and refusing the written statement filed by the defendants-petitioners on 22.07.2004 to be taken on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while it is true that the period of 90 days has been prescribed for filing the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. but it is submitted that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. are not mandatory but directory. It is submitted that since the case was still going on for the service upon the remaining defendants, it cannot be said that the defendants-petitioners were in any manner delaying 3 the proceedings by not filing the written statement. It is further submitted that the case was adjourned for filing the written statement to 20.05.2004 and further to 07.07.2004. On 07.07.2004 though the written statement was ready the defendants-petitioners were unable to file the same under the tragic circumstances that a close relative of the counsel for the defendants had died and the counsel had not come to court and on the next date fixed the written statement was filed and the case was still fixed for service upon the remaining defendants. Learned counsel for the respondents has objected to the aforesaid submissions and submitted that the defendants have not complied with the provisions of Rule 1 Order 8 C.P.C. by not submitting the written statement within the prescribed period and there is no sufficient cause shown as to why the written statement could not be filed within the prescribed period of 90 days. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and I am of the opinion that so far as the delay is concerned, the period of 90 days is directory and the same is to be considered in the light of the legislative intent and the object for the amendment which is to prevent delay in filing the written statement and the defendant thereby delaying the proceedings before the learned trial court. However, in the present case, since the remaining defendants were yet to be served, the suit could not progressed as the case was still fixed for the service upon the remaining defendants it cannot be 4 said that the petitioners were delaying the proceedings of the trial of the suit. Moreover, the case was fixed on 07.07.2004 for filing the written statement which was ready but the counsel for the defendant-petitioners did not attend the court on account of tragic circumstances and the case was fixed for 22.07.2004 on which date the written statement was filed. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I would accept the prayer made by the counsel for the defendants-petitioners for taking on record the written statement which was filed on 22.07.2004 though with the delay. However, the writ petition is allowed, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the plaintiffs- respondents and the impugned order is set aside. The cost to be tendered before the learned trial court on the next date. Subject to the payment of cost, the written statement filed by the defendants-petitioners shall be taken on record. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed, as indicated above. The stay application stands disposed of. The interim order passed by this court on 18.03.2008 stands vacated. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.