20.3.2008 Present: Mr. Aman Sood, vice counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Kumar,counsel for respondents, 2 & 4 to 7. CMPMO No. 19 of 2007. This petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge ( Sr. Div), Court No.1 Una, H.P. whereby the defence of the petitioners/defendants was struck off for not filing their written statement. Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit against the present petitioners (hereinafter to as the defendants). The defendants were served and put in appearance before the trial Court on 25.10.2004. One opportunity was given to them to file their written statement on 21.12.2004. The matter was then adjourned to 1.2.2005 for filing the written statement. However, the written statement was not filed and, therefore, the learned Civil Judge struck off the right to file the written statement solely on the ground that more than 90 days have elapsed since service of the defendants, hence no further opportunity would be granted to them to file their written statement. The defendants thereafter filed their written statement along with an application seeking review of the earlier order dated 1.2.2005. The said application was rejected after two years in December, 2006. Hence the present petition has been filed before this Court. I have heard Mr. Aman Sood learned counsel for the petitioners/ defendants and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. Interestingly, almost three years have elapsed and in case the defendants had been permitted to file their written statement at the initial stage in December, 2005, the trial probably would have been concluded now. The Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association T.N. versus Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, has clearly held that bar of 90 days is not absolutely mandatory and the Court has the jurisdiction for reasons to be recorded to grant further time to the defaulting party. As far as the first order is concerned, the learned trial Court passed this order solely on the ground that the defendants had failed to file their written statement within 90 days and the trial court has not considered any other reason given by the defendants for extending time for filing the written statement. This order is apparently incorrect. The defendants filed their written statement along with an application explaining the reason for not filing the written statement in time. One of the reasons given was that the defendant No.1 could not attend the hearing since his son was unwell. Another reason given was that the counsel for the defendants was not in station on 1.2.2005 and had gone to Delhi to attend some wedding of their relatives. This by itself is a sufficient cause since the defendants were not at fault and could not prepare the written statement due to absence of their counsel. The plaintiffs could easily have been compensated for the adjournment by imposition of costs. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the learned trial court has gravely erred in not taking the written statement filed by the defendants on record. The petition is accordingly allowed and the written statement filed by the defendants is permitted to be taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2000/- which shall be paid by them on 23.4.2008 before the trial Court. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23.4.2008. March 20, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.