IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4299 of 2006. Paras Mal Bhandari son of lateShri Mohan Lal Bhandari & Anr. VERSUS Ratan Lal Sankhla son of late Shri Shiv Chand Sankhla Date Of Order ::: 19/05/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Rajeev Surana, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Rajesh Mootha, Counsel for respondent By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for eviction in the trial court against the defendant/petitioners, wherein the summons were served upon the defendants on 18.04.2003 and they were required to file written-statements within a period of 90-days, but the same was filed in the trial Court on 05.12.2003, along with an application to take the same on the record. The application was contested by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, excluded the written-statements filed by the defendants from the record vide impugned order dated 18.03.2005. The defendants thereafter filed a review petition to review the order dated 18.03.2005, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2006. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 18.03.2005 preferred this writ petition before this Court on 28.04.2005. This Court issued notice to the respondents vide order dated 29.05.2006, and also stayed the further proceedings of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the defendant/petitioners contended that the written-statement was prepared, and the same was signed by the defendant on 25.04.2003, and it was handed-over to their advocate, who did not file the same within time, therefore, the delay in filing the written-statement was not deliberate, but it was on account of their advocate, which should have been condoned, and the written-statements should have been taken on the record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents contended that the provisions regarding filing of the written- statements within a period of 90-days are mandatory in nature, therefore, the delay could not have been condoned and the learned Lower Court was right in passing the impugned order dated 18.03.2005. He further contended that the review petition was also filed by the petitioners, but the same was also rejected vide order dated 31.03.2006, which has been placed on the record, along with the reply to the writ petition. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same may be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the reasons assigned by the trial Court in the impugned order as well as order rejecting the review petition, and after considering the same, I am of the view that the right of the defendants to file the written-statements is a valuable right and normally it should not be denied. The provisions in this regard are now held to be directory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So far as the delay of the proceedings on the part of the defendants is concerned, the same could have been compensated by costs. In view of above discussions, I am of the view that the trial Court committed an illegality in passing the impugned order and the same cannot be allowed to be sustained, otherwise the defendants will suffer irreparable loss. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.03.2005 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The written-statement filed by the defendant/ petitioners is taken on the record at the costs of Rs.3000/-, which will be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff within a period of one-month from today, failing which the written-statement will not be taken on the record and no further opportunity will be granted in this regard, and the trial Court shall proceed with the case. This is a matter relating to the eviction filed by the landlord and the same is pending since, 2003, therefore, I think it fit and proper to give a direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial of the suit. The trial Court will make an effort to decide the main suit itself within a period of one-year from the date of receipt of the order. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/