1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7247/2005. Kailash Chand. VS Ramesh Chand & Anr. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7247/2005. Kailash Chand. VERSUS Ramesh Chand and Another. 03.08.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Ashok Gaur ] Mr.Vijaydutt Sharma] for the petitioner. Mr.S.C.Gupta, for the respondents. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 02.08.2005, the learned trial court rejected the application by which the written statement which had been filed after 24 days delay after 90 days has been refused to be taken on record. The learned court below construed the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. to be mandatory and, therefore, not only rejected the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay but also declined to take the written statement on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocates' Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 JT (1) SC 486 and in the case of Kailash Vs. 2 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7247/2005. Kailash Chand. VS Ramesh Chand & Anr. Nanhku reported in 2005 AIR SCW 2346 whereby the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. have been held to be directory in nature, the delay of 24 days in filing the written statement is condoned. The learned trial court is directed to take the written statement on record. Consequently, the writ petition as well as the stay application stand disposed of. The interim order is vacated. The learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.