1 WP 4956/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4956 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. S.N. Chandrachood for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 13TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 23 February 2010 passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the written statement. 3. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) requires a defendant to the suit to file the written 2 WP 4956/10 statement within 30 days. The time can be extended by the Court from time to time but not for a period exceeding 90 days. In the present case, the written statement was tendered along with an application for condonation of delay after 3 years of the appearance of the petitioner in the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in R.N. Jadi & Brothers v. Subhashchandra, 2008 (3) Bom. C.R. 386 and submitted that the delay can be condoned. In that case, the delay was of only 2 days and the Court was satisfied about the sufficiency of the cause. The case has no application to the facts of the present case. 5. No doubt, in Kailash v. Nanhku, AIR 2005 SC 2441, the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code are directory. However, at the same time, the 3 WP 4956/10 Supreme Court has cautioned that it does not mean that the Court can condone the delay in filing of the written statement so as to take the life and blood out of the provision. An order for condonation of delay can be passed only for reasons to be recorded in writing and that too on Court being satisfied about the sufficiency of the cause for the delay. In the present case, the delay was of 3 years. The learned trial Judge has held that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The said finding cannot be interfered with in a discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)