WPMS No.699 of 2005 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate for the respondent nos.2 & 3. The application for extension of time to file the written statement was rejected against which the present petition has been filed by the petitioners. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court finds that there is a delay of approximate seven months. On the other hand, the court also finds that the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that a liberal view should have been taken. The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory as held by the Supreme Court. This court is of the opinion that the delay in filing the written statement can be compensated in terms of cost. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner to file the written statement is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The written statement be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), which shall be deposited before the trial court within three weeks from today. The amount so deposited can be withdrawn by the plaintiff without furnishing security. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 23.12.2011 LSR