CRP 328/2009 BEFORE HON\BLE MR JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY Heard Mr. FU Borbhuya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice was duly served upon respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 but none has appeared today on their behalf. Unserved notice in respect of respondent No.6 has been re ceived with report of postal department endorsing that the addressee is not know n. However, Mr. Borbhuya submits that the notice on respondent No.3 was served b y Dasti service on 05.01.2011 as per order dated 08.10.2010 of this court and to that effect an affidavit has been filed on 05.01.2011. There is no representati on for the respondent No.3. The relevant facts leading to filing of this revisio n petition is that the present petitioner instituted T.S No. 20 of 2007 in the C ourt of learned Munsiff No.1, North Lakhimpur for recovery of physical possessio n and removal of temporary structure installed on the suit land mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. The opposite party/ defendant filed written statement within time in the aforesaid suit. The opposite party also filed counter claim a longwith the written statement and the present petitioner/ plaintiff was require d to file written statement in the aforesaid counter claim on 19.03.2008. But th e counter claim could not be filed on the said date as the wife of the learned c ounsel engaged by the petitioner was seriously ill and she was suffering from ca ncer and she died on 15.07.2008. However, the written statement in the counter c laim was filed on 26.03.2008 i.e. just after six days from the date fixed for th e same on 19.03.2008. The learned Trial Court refused to accept the written statement filed by the pet itioner and an Order was passed on 12.05.2008 refusing to accept the written sta tement on the ground that the statutory period of 90 days has already elapsed. The petitioner as plaintiff filed a petition on 13.08.2008 under order 8 Rule 6A (3) of the CPC for review of the order dated 12.05.2008 but the said petition w as rejected on the date i.e. on 30.09.2008 by the learned Trial Court. The petit ioner has filed this present revision petition against the aforesaid order dated 13.08.2008 and the said petition was rejected on 13.9.2008. Mr. Borbhuiya submits that the order refusing to accept the written statement f iled by the petitioner, should be set aside and quashed in as much as there was delay of only 6 days in filing the written statement from the date fixed by the Court and it would not cause any prejudice to the opposite party/ defendant. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be considered on the basis of principle laid down by the Apex Court regarding filing of written s tatement beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, one of which is in Kailash vs- Nanhiku reported in 2005(4) SCC 480. It may be quite beneficial if paragraph 27 of the Judgment is quoted Three things are clear. Firstly, a careful reading of the language in which O rder 8 Rule 1 has been drafted, shows that it casts an obligation on the defenda nt to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summ ons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. The provision do es not deal with the power of the court and also does not specifically take away the power of the court to take the written statement on record though filed bey ond the time as provided for. Secondly, the nature of the provision contained in Order 8 Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. Thirdly , the object behind substituting Order 8 rule 1 in the present shape is to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases much to the chagrin of the plaintiffs and petitioners approach ing the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the cour t faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to expedite the he aring and not to scuttle the same. The process of justice may be speeded up and hurried but the fairness which is a basic element of justice cannot be permitted to be buried. What is insisted upon is to expedite the hearing and rendering justice without any prejudice to the other party. In the present case, it is admittedly found that there was delay of only 6 days in filing written statement. It is als o found that the petitioner filed the written statement after 6 days from the da te fixed by the Court and he filed a petition for accepting the said written sta tement explaining the reason as to why the written statement could not be filed within time and why there was a delay of 6 days. From the averments made in the petition, it is also found that the petitioner did not take repeated adjournment or sought for extension of time on several occasion for filing written statemen t. There was as I find, no negligence or laches on the part of the petitioner bu t due to unforeseen reasons like serious illness of the counsel’s wife, the dela y was caused and in my considered view, the delay of 6 days is not causing any s erious prejudice to the defendants and as such, the written statement filed by t he petitioner should have been accepted by the learned Trial Court for the ends of justice. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the decision of the Apex Cou rt and also in the attending facts and circumstances, I hold that the impugned o rder dated 12.05.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be set asid e and quashed. It is accordingly ordered. The learned Trial Court shall pass nec essary order accepting the written statement filed by the present petitioner on 26.02.2008 and proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with law. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and disposed of .