1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6480 OF 2007. Yashwant Ratan Patil ... Petitioner. Versus Subhadrabai W/o Bhaurao Patil ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.B.Madde, advocate holding for Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner. Respondent served - absent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 26.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order rendered on his application (Exh.18) in suit (RCS No.131/2006), whereby the 2 leaned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhule, declined leave to file written statement. The petitioner is original defendant in suit filed by the Respondent for perpetual injunction. He was served with summons of the suit and for the first time appeared in the Court on 28.5.2006. He could not file written statement within a period of 90 (ninety) days as contemplated under the procedural law. He filed an application (Exh.14) through his advocate that due to illness he was unable to attend the Court and file his written statement alongwith an application to set aside the order to proceed without his W.S. The application was allowed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhule. He subsequently, filed application (Exh.18) seeking leave to file written statement on record. In his application he gave various reasons including his illness, he being illiterate, rustic and an agriculturist having no legal knowledge. He also submitted that he could not collect the important documents to prepare his defence. The application was resisted by the Respondent (plaintiff). 3 3. By the impugned order, the learned Jt.Civil Judge (J.D.), rejected application holding that the reasons furnished by the petitioner were not convincing and not in keeping with the provisions of the law. 4. Though served, the Respondent has remained absent. 5. The question is whether the petitioner could be allowed to file his written statement when he explained the reasons for omission to file the written statement within the stipulated period. This Court in "Mangala W/o Pradeep Lambade Vs. Madhubala d/o Madhukar Mishra" 2009 (1) Mh.L.J.322, held that order VIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is directory in nature. The Apex Court also in "M/s R.N.Jadi and Brothers and others Vs. Subhashchandra" AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2571, held that the provisions are of directory in nature. No hard and fast rule can be applied in the context of the provisions which are procedural in nature. The petitioner gave sufficient reasons in order to explain as to why 4 the written statement could not be filed within the given time period. He is a rustic villager. He explained that he was suffering from illness during the period upto lst week of January 2007. The learned Civil Judge observed that medical certificate was not filed by the petitioner. The statement on affidavit was not controverted by the other side. Consequently, the explanation put forth by the petitioner should have been normally accepted by the trial Court. The impugned order shows that the learned Civil Judge had not properly appreciated the contentions of the petitioner and has taken a dogmatic view. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is unsustainable. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Rule is made absolute. The written statement shall be taken on record by allowing the application. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp648007