IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7354 OF 2005. Manjeet Singh son of Shri Pratap Singh VERSUS Uttam Chand Avalkhan son of late Shri Surajbhan Avalkhan and Another Date Of Order ::: 22/05/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Counsel for the respondents By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 instituted a civil suit in the trial court, wherein the summon of the suit was served on the defendant/petitioner on 24.02.2005 and he was required to file written-statement within a period of 90-days i.e. on or before 25.05.2005. However, the same was filed on 18.07.2005, along with an application to take the same on record. The trial Court rejected the application of the defendant No.2-petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2005 and passed an order that the written-statement filed by the petitioner be detached from the file and, be tagged with the Part- D of the file. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition filed on behalf of the defendant no.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he gave cogent reasons for not filing the written-statement in time and to extend the time for filing the written-statement, but the learned trial Court without considering the said reasons wrongly rejected the application, therefore, the said order be set aside and, the written- statement filed by the defendant No.2 be taken on the record. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is absolutely justified and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties in the light of the reasons assigned by the trial Court. The summon of the suit upon the defendant/ petitioner was served on 24.02.2005 and the written-statement was filed on 18.07.2005, along with an application for extension of time, which was rejected by the trial Court and the written-statement was not taken on the record. The right of the defendant to file written- statement is a valuable right, which should not be denied normally, if there is any delay in filing the written-statement, then same may be compensated by way of costs. In the present case, I find that there was no much delay on the part of the defendant to file the written- statement. The provision relating to filing of the written-statement in time are directory in nature, therefore, I think it fit and proper to allow this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.08.2005 is set aside and the written-statement filed by the defendant no.2-petitioner is ordered to be taken on the record at the costs of Rs.3000/-, which will be paid by the defendant no.2- petitioner to the plaintiff/respondents or his Counsel on or before 2nd July, 2008, with the clear understanding that in case the amount of costs is not paid by the aforesaid date, then the written-statement of the petitioner will not be taken on the record and no further opportunity will be granted by the trial Court in this regard. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application for extension of stay order and the same stands disposed of. So far as this writ petition is concerned, there will be no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J.