IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 202 OF 2008 PRAKASH SITARAM MOREY AND 2 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus ASHOK SHRIRANG SALVI ... Respondent Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 8th April, 2009 P.C. Heard Mr. Kakodkar for the petitioners. By this petition, the petitioners take exception to the Order dated 22.12.2007, passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji in Special Civil Suit No.26/2003/B, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking leave to file written statement. 2. The petitioners are the defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 26/2003/B filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, at Panaji for recovery of money. The defendants were served on 3.4.03 and the matter was fixed on 30.4.2003. On 27/6/2003, an application under Order VII, Rule 11 and Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendants, which came to be dismissed on 11.10.2005. It is the case of the defendants that their Advocate did not inform them about progress in the suit. Therefore, the defendants engaged another Advocate who filed Wakalatnama on 27.7.06. On 23/11/2006, an application seeking leave to file written statement was filed, accompanied by written statement. The trial Court, by the impugned order dated 22.12.2007 dismissed the application. Being aggrieved, the petitioners/defendants have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submitted that there was sufficient cause for the defendants not to file the written statement within the time stipulated under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the Advocate then appearing for the defendants did not inform the defendants about the progress in the suit and, therefore, they could not file the written statement within the time prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. He further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff if the defendants are allowed to file written statement. The learned Counsel further urged that Order VIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. has been held to be "directory" and "not mandatory" by the Apex Court and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and having perused the record, I find no merit in the present petition. It is pertinent to note that the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC came to be dismissed on 11.10.05. Although another Advocate was engaged by the defendants who filed Wakalatnama on 27.7.06, the application seeking leave to file written statement was filed on 23.11.2006. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay from 11.10.05 to 23.11.06. 5. Considering the circumstances of the case, the contention of the petitioners/defendants that the delay was caused on account of non-communication by their earlier Advocate, cannot be accepted. No doubt, Order VIII, Rule 1 CPC has been held to be "directory" by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. However, in order to justify filing of the written statement beyond the period prescribed under Order VII, Rule 11, a party seeking to file written statement, has to make out sufficient cause and only if the sufficient cause is made out, the trial Court can permit filing of written statement after recording reasons in writing. In the present case, the conduct of the defendants does not warrant any indulgence in their favour. In my considered view, no sufficient cause has been made out by the petitioners/defendants for extension of time to file written statement. Therefore, no fault can be found with the reasons given by the trial Court while passing the impugned Order. 6. In the result, therefore, the petition is summarily rejected. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ssm.