1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.67 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4487 OF 2007. (PRABHUBHAI J. RATHOD Vs KANTILAL JADHAVJI RATHOD ..) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____ Shri S.R.Srivastava, Advocate for Appellant. CORAM : K.J.ROHEE & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : MARCH 04, 2008. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant/ petitioner/ original plaintiff. The original plaintiff has grievance that the learned single Judge permitted the respondent/ original defendant No.2 to file written statement subject to costs of Rs.Ten Thousand. 2. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Single Judge granted permission to file written statement without assigning any reason. The learned counsel for the petitioner 2 submitted that an order without reasons cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. & oth., reported at AIR 2007 SC 1574. In which the Court observed that neither trial Court nor High Court indicated any reason to justify acceptance of written statement after expiry of time fixed, therefore, order allowing filing of written statement was set aside. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash Vs. Nanhku & others, reported at 2005(2) Mh.L.J. 775, in which it is observed that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure being a part of procedural law, are directory, however, prayer for extension of time to file written statement should not be granted as a matter of routine and merely for asking. Extension of time can be allowed if it was needed to be 3 given for circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if time was not extended. 4. There cannot be any quarrel with this proposition of law as settled by the Supreme Court. However, in the instant case, perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the parties agreed that the reasons can be dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly objects this statement by saying that no such concession was given. However, in view of the specific observation of the learned Single Judge in the order, we are not inclined to take any other view in the matter. We see no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RR.