IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7018 of 2004. Ghanshyam Dass Soni son of Shri Ramji Soni & Another Versus The Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Another Date Of Order ::: 27/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. O.P. Mishra, advocate, for Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Anoop Dhand, Counsel for the Respondent no.2 By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff/respondent no.2 instituted a suit for recovery of the amount in the trial Court, wherein summon was served upon the defendant/petitioner on 03.09.2003, and thereafter, he filed his written- statement in the trial Court on 17.01.2004. The plaintiff filed an application in the trial Court on 17.01.2004 to the effect that the written-statement has been filed after expiry of period of 90-days, therefore, the written- statement may not be taken on the record. The trial Court vide its order dated 20.08.2004 allowed the application and directed that the written-statement may not be taken on the record. The said order of the trial Court has been challenged by the defendant before this Court in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned trial Court has committed an illegality in allowing the application of the plaintiffs and passing an order in not taking on record the written- statement on the ground that the amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory in nature, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that these provisions are only directory in nature, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 defended the impugned order and contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 20.08.2004, and after considering the same, I am of the view that the trial Court committed an illegality in passing the impugned order. The summon of the suit was served on the defendant on 03.09.2003 and he filed his written-statement on 17.01.2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held that these provisions are only directory in nature and if, there is some delay, then the same can be condoned, and only on this ground a valuable right on the defendant to file its written- statement cannot be taken away. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.08.2004 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The application filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. The written-statement filed by the defendant on 17.01.2004 is directed to be taken on the record. The defendant will pay costs of a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff within a period of one-month from today. It is made clear that in case the costs, as awarded above, is not paid within aforesaid time, then the impugned order will be deemed to have been upheld and the written- statement filed by the defendant will not be taken on the record. There will be no order as to costs, so far as this writ petition is concerned. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/