1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5758 OF 2009 Deccan Education Society ...Petitioner vs. Rakshak Industrial Security Agency Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/b Mr.R.M.Pethe for the petitioner Mr.S.M.Mirajkar for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 12, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent is the original plaintiff. The respondent did not file the written statement within the time prescribed by Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (herein after referred to as the said Code). Time of thirty days for filing the written statement expired on 16 th November 2008. The outer limit of 90 days from the date of appearance expired on 16 th January 2009. On 6 th March 2009 the petitioner-defendant made an application seeking permission of the Court to tender the written statement. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the delay of 50 days has not been explained. The opposition to the said application was on the ground that there is no explanation for delay and there is no affidavit in support filed by the petitioner. 2 The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the Petition on the ground that there is no exceptional 2 cause set out. I find that this was a case where exceptional circumstances were brought on record by the petitioner. Period of 90 days under Rule 1 of Order VIII of the said Code expired on 16 th January 2009. The said provision has been held to be directory by the Apex Court. In the application made by the petitioner it is stated that the written statement was ready on the earlier date. However, due to fault in the computer, the written statement could not be filed on the earlier date. The question whether the existence of extraordinary circumstances is made out or not depends on the facts of each case. In the present case, the case made out by the petitioner is that though the written statement was ready on earlier date, the same could not be filed due to technical fault with the computer. In fact, the written statement was tendered along with the application on which impugned order has been passed. The learned trial Judge ought to have allowed the said application by directing the petitioner to pay costs to the respondent. Hence, the petition must succeed. The amount of costs is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 3 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application at Exh.13 is allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today. ii) The payment of costs will be a condition precedent. JUDGE