IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.618 of 2009 YAMUNA SINGH & ORS Versus ARBIND SINGH & ORS ----------- 2. 20.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. From the impugned order, it appears that the written statement of the defendant has not been accepted by the court below on the ground that it was filed about seven months after expiry of time limit prescribed by Order-VIII Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For not accepting the written statement of the defendant, the learned court below has relied upon that the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 2002 (6) page 635. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provisions of Order-VIII of the Code are not mandatory, as has been laid down recently in another judgment by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009(i) PLJR (SC)286. Therefore the learned court below ought to have considered the explanation given by the defendant for not filing the written statement in the plaint and ought to have accepted the written statement on appreciating the reasons for delay caused in the matter. It appears that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not before the trial court at the time when the written statement of the defendant was rejected, although there was no objection from the side of the plaintiff for the same. In that view - 2 - of the matter, this revision application is disposed of with a liberty to the defendant to file a fresh application before the learned court below along with the copy of recent judgment of the Supreme Court as referred to above for appreciation of the trial court with a prayer to consider the ground for delay caused in filing of the written statement on its merit and after accepting the same for allowing written statement for taking it on record. With the above observation this revision application is disposed of. If such a petition is filed by the defendant, the learned court below shall consider the same on merit without taking it into account earlier order impugned in the revision application. (J. N. Singh, J.) Ravi/-