IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1277 of 2007 BHIM RAJ PRASAD @ BALAK DAS Versus MISHRI LAL SAH ----------- 2 2.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view that the petitioner is a sole defendant in a suit for specific performance and that in the application filed by him for condoning the delay in filing of the written statement he had specifically taken a plea of his illness even before the period he had undergone the treatment of a doctor i.e. prior to 1.11.2006, this Court does not find any justification in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner. The scope of Order VIII Rule 1 having been now settled by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku reported in AIR 2005 S.C. 2441 this much is clear that if for some unexplicable reason the defendant is precluded in filing the written statement, the Court has to allow filing of written statement. Here in this case the ground of illness of the defendant-petitioner was a good ground and the Court below ought to have not rejected the same. Considering the nature of stake involved in the suit and the compelling reasons for not filing the written statement in time being illness of the petitioner who is the sole defendant this Court has no option but to hold that the impugned order is vitiated by a manifest jurisdictional error. Accordingly, this Court would set aside the impugned order dated 5.6.2007 and would direct the Court below to take written statement filed by the petitioner on record on payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- (three thousand) to the plaintiff to compensate the delay and inconvenience caused to him, within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Order. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this Civil Revision application is allowed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)