CRP 348/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. NK. SINGH JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) 1. Perused the office note dated 13.2.2008, which indicates that as per the Lawazima Court’s order under reference the case is ready as regards the service . 2. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defe ndant. 3. A short facts of the case is required to be noted for deciding the prese nt revision petition. On 21.4.2004, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) pa ssed an order that the defendant had prayed for time by filing petition No.818/0 4 for filing written statement and time was granted and the case was fixed on 25 .5.2004 for filing written statement. It is the specific case of the petitioner/ defendant that behind his back and knowledge the date for filing the written sta tement i.e. 25.5.2004 had been changed to 7.5.2004. Petitioner-defendant filed h is written statement on 25.5.2004, which was the earlier date fixed by the learn ed Civil Judge, Senior Division vide his order dated 21.4.2004 for filing of wri tten statement. 4. On 23.6.2004, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) by passing a cry ptic order did not accept the written statement filed by the plaintiff-defendant on the sole ground that the written statement couldn’t be filed within 90 days. Copy of the said order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated 23.6. 2004 is available at Annexure-A-5 to the present revision petition. 5. On perusal of the said order dated 23.6.2004, it is not clear as to how the 90 days period was calculated inasmuch as from which date the period of 90 d ays had been calculated is not mentioned in the said order dated 23.6.2004. 6. Later on, the petitioner-defendant filed an application being petition N o.1844 praying for accepting the written statement which had already been filed by reviewing the earlier order dated 23.6.2004. The said petition No.818/04 file d by the petitioner-defendant had been rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Seni or Division) by passing the impugned order dated 12.4.2005. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-defendant filed the present revision pet ition. On perusal of the impugned order dated 12.4.2005, it appears that the lea rned Civil Judge (Senior Division) had refused to accept the written statement o f the petitioner-defendant only on the ground that the written statement filed a fter 90 days could not be accepted as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. 8. It is well settled principle of law that rule of procedure are made to a dvance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Construction of the rule of pr ocedure, which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage, has to be preferred. 9. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by heavily re lying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others report ed in (2005) 4 SCC 480 and (2) Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 353 submitted that the provision providing maximu m period of 90 days for filing written statement contained in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory but by the impugned order written statement has not been accep ted in a routine manner. 10. Mr. Mazumdar, further urged that the period for filing written statement contemplated in Order 8 Rule 1 can also be extended in the exceptional cases. 11. In the present case as discussed above, the petitioner-defendant had fil ed the written statement within the time limit granted by the learned Civil Judg e (Senior Division) vide his order dated 21.4.2004. Keeping in view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner/defendant could make out the case calling for interference with the impugned order dated 1 2.4.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) by this Court by ex ercising its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC read with Article 227 of the Con stitution of India. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.4.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Diovision), Nag aon in T.S. No.70/03 is hereby set aside. 12. In the result, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon is dire cted to accept the written statement of the petitioner/defendant which had alrea dy been filed and proceed with the trial of the T.S. No.70/03 according to law.