WPMS No. 517 of 2003 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Shri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A suit was instituted in the year 2001. The written statement was filed on 24/10/2002, admittedly, after the expiry of the prescribed period contemplated under Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. Eventually, when the written statement was filed, the plaintiff moved an application praying that the trial court should reject the written statement since it was filed after the stipulated period. The application of the plaintiff was rejected and the written statement of the defendant was taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.150/-. The plaintiff, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the delay was not such which was fatal to the disposal of the suit. Such delay should be compensated in terms of cost. The Supreme Court, in the cases of Ram Kusum (Smt.) Vs. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) and others, 2005 (33) AIC 85 (SC), Kailash Vs. Nanku and others, AIR 2005 (4) SCC 480, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khaymsab Vs. Kumar and others, 2006 (62) ALR 316 (SC) and Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 held that the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is directory in nature, being procedural and is not mandatory and that the Trial Court can extend the time for filing the written statement on sufficient cause being shown. The Supreme Court also observed that observance of the time schedule should be the rule and departure from it can only be made on satisfactory reasons to be recorded. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Certified copy of the order shall be sent by the Registry to the trial court within two weeks for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 22.12.2011 Shiv