IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO 264 of 2007 Date of decision: 24.4.2008 Subhash Chand ..Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar and another ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This petition is directed against the order of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barsar passed in Civil Suit No. 124 of 2003 whereby he has allowed the application filed by respondent No. 2(original defendant No.2) and has directed that the written statement filed by the present petitioner (defendant No. 1 in the trial court) be struck off from the record. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 herein, field a suit against the defendants. In that suit both the defendants were served 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 for 1st August, 2003 to put in appearance. Written statement was not filed within 90 days and on 17.5.2004 neither defendant No.1 nor his counsel was present and, therefore, were proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter defendant No. 1 filed an application for setting aside ex parte proceeding. This application was allowed by the court. The order dated 17.5.2004 was recalled and further time was granted to defendant No. 1 to file written statement. The defendant thereafter filed his written statement. After the defendant No. 1 filed the written statement, defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 praying that since the written statement had been filed after 90 days of service, the same cannot be read in evidence. The learned trial court allowed the application and struck off the written statement. The Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3353 clearly held that the limitation of 90 days is not mandatory and that the court has inherent power to extend the time to file written statement. In this case after the ex parte order was set aside, the learned trial court extended the time for filing the written statement and 3 written statement was filed pursuant to the order of the learned trial court. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that once written statement had been filed, it was not in the interest of justice to strike off the written statement. The learned trial court spent four months in deciding this application which could have been more fruitfully to spent on proceeding with the trial itself. Once the party had filed the written statement, it was not in the interest of justice to strike off the same. Consequently, the order dated 6th August, 2007 passed by the learned trial court is set aside, written statement filed by the petitioner- defendant No. 2 shall be treated to be on record and the case shall proceed further. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. April 24, 2008(K) ( Deepak Gupta ),J.