IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 391 of 2010 Date of decision: 9.11.2010 Vikram Singh …Petitioner. Versus Chander Prakash and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The only grievance made in this petition is that the learned lower Appellate Court vide the impugned order has permitted the defendants to file written statement after the statutory period of 90 days had elapsed without there being any written application and no cogent reason being given. 2. In support of his contention Shri Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Aditya Hotels (P) Limited vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Limited and others, (2007) 14 SCC 431, wherein the Apex Court has reiterated the observations made by it in Kailash vs. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480, wherein it was stated that extension of time beyond 90 days should not be granted merely for the asking and reasons must be spelt out for a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1. 3. The impugned order reads as follows:- “At this stage, it comes to the notice of this Court that defendants could not file written statement within statutory period of 90 days. However, he sought leave to file written statement. Leave is granted, subject to cost of Rs.200/-. Cost not paid. Written statement filed. Copy supplied. Now case be fixed for replication, if any, and framing of issues on 21.10.2010.” 4. The undisputed facts are that respondents No. 1 and 2 were served on 7th June, 2010 and therefore the period of 90 days would have elapsed on 5th September, 2010. As far as respondent No.3 is concerned the period would have elapsed on 13th August, 2010. The impugned 3 order has been passed on 30th September, 2010 and as far as respondents No. 1 and 2 are concerned, the delay, is only of 25 days. No doubt, the learned trial Court should have passed a better order giving more detailed reasons but keeping in view the fact that the delay is of less than a month, I feel that this is not a fit case where I should exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is rejected in limine. No order as to costs. 9th November, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge