1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3643 OF 2008. Navnath S/o Janardhan Jadhav ... Petitioner. Versus Sumanbai Balasaheb More and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.C.Garud, advocate for the petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 u/g of Respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.6,7 and 9 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 30.06.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 13.6.2006, passed on plaint (Exh.1) and order dated 9.8.2006, passed on application (Exh.23) as well as order dated 22.1.2007, passed on application (Exh.25) in suit bearing (RCS No.34/2006), by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Jamkhed. 2 2. Though served, the Respondent did not appear in this Court. 3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, who is original defendant No.3 in the suit and has been denied opportunity to file his written statement. 4. The petitioner was served with suit summons (Exh.8) on 20.3.2006. He appeared for the first time on 23.3.2006 and sought time to file written statement. The learned Civil Judge on 13.6.2006, passed order below plaint (Exh.1) to proceed without written statement of the petitioner. The petitioner lateron filed above referred application to allow him to file the written statement. It is pertinent to note that the application (Exh.23) was filed on 3.7.2006 and prior to that he had filed yet another application on 13.6.2006, for allowing him to file the written statement. His application dated 13.6.2006 was rejected by the learned Civil Judge. In fact, the application dated 13.6.2006 3 was within 90 (ninety) days period of his appearance and there was no justification for rejection of such application. 5. It is well settled that provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. are directory in nature. The procedure is not to be used as measure of oppression. The procedural law needs to be interpreted so as to further the ends of justice. In "M/s R.N.Jadi and Brothers & others Vs. Subhashchandra" AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2571, the Apex Court held that the provision is directory in nature. Considering these aspects, all the above orders are improper, perverse and liable to be interfered with. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner be permitted to file his written statement. If it is filed, it may be taken on record and the suit shall be proceeded further. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp364308