1 CRA 156/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 156 OF 2011 Avdhesh Kumar Vishwakarma .. Applicant V/s Gulab Chand Rajaram & Ors .. Respondents Mr. Ashok B. Mishra for the applicant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 3RD MARCH 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 10th February 2009 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai, rejecting the application of the revision applicant for condonation of delay in filing of the written statement and for permission to file the written statement. 3. In a suit for eviction filed by the respondent, a writ of summons was served on the revision applicant on 16th January 2006. Even before the service of the writ of summons, notice of 2 CRA 156/2011 application for interim relief was also served and the applicant had appeared in the Court and contested the said application. He however did not file the written statement and made an application on 30th September 2008 for permission to file the written statement by condoning the delay. 4. Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) provides that the written statement must be filed within a period of 30 days and the period can be extended upto a maximum period of 90 days. No doubt, in Kailash v. Nanhku, AIR 2005 SC 2441, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court while holding that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code are directory but it has cautioned the Courts against indiscriminate use of the discretion in extending the time for filing the written statement beyond the maximum period of 90 days prescribed by the statute. The Supreme Court has also observed that the decision should not be construed to take away the very life and vigour of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code. Time to file the written statement beyond the statutory period of 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, can be extended only in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing. In the present case, for more than 2 years and 8 months the revision applicant did not file the written 3 CRA 156/2011 statement. Satisfactory explanation was also not offered by the revision applicant for the delay in filing of the written statement. Consequently, the trial Court committed no error in rejecting the application. In any event, this is not a fit case for entertaining the revision application. The revision application is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)