// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6467/2008 Pramod Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Om Prakash Gupta Versus Murti Mandir Sheetla Mata and Others Date of Order ::: 01.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Suresh Sahni, Counsel for petitioner Shri N.K. Maloo, Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri N.K. Maloo, Advocate, appears for the respondents No.1 to 3. The respondent No.4 is only a Proforma respondent, therefore, its service is dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition, on behalf of the defendant No.1, is directed against the impugned order dated 21st May, 2008 passed by the trial court rejecting his application under Section 148 CPC to extend the time to take written-statement on the record and in passing the order to put a note on written-statement that it will not be treated as part of the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner // 2 // contended that he filed an application under Section 148 CPC within the time to extend the time to file the written-statement and, after eight days, he also filed the written-statement but still the trial court rejected his application. The learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial court, and, after considering the same, I find that, as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, there is time limit prescribed for filing the written-statement but that time limit is for the defendant and the same does not take away the powers of the court to take the written- statement on the record though filed beyond 90 days. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.N. Jadi & Brothers Vs. Subhashchandra – (2007) 6 SCC 420 , has considered the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and the proviso thereto and held that these provisions are directory in nature and they do not take away the power of the court to take written statement on record though filed beyond 90 days; they only cast an obligation on // 3 // defendant to file written statement within the time provided for. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21st May, 2008 passed by the trial court, is set-aside. The written-statement filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner is directed to be taken on the record. No order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//