1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No. 117/2007 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through the Divisional Controller, Akola Division, Akola vs. Babusaheb Namdeorao Ladikar and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE, J DATE : 10.9.2008 Heard Mr. Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents though served. By this petition the petitioner challenges order dated 11.3.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Akola in Regular Civil Suit No. 53/2004 by which the application filed by the petitioner who is defendant in the said suit seeking leave to file written statement has been rejected. The respondent no.1 filed the above suit for injunction against the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Aurangabad as well as the Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Akola. The defendants were served on 27.2.2004. Upon serve time was sought on behalf of the defendants for filing written statement on 9.3.2004, 15.3.2004 and 2.4.2004. On 23.6.2004 the defendants again filed the application for granting time for which plaintiff gave no objection. On 20.8.2004 the defendants filed application seeking leave to file written statement which was opposed by the plaintiff. By impugned order the trial court rejected the prayer made by the defendants. Aggrieved, the Corporation is before this Court. 2` Mr. Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory but it is directory. He further submitted that the trial court ought to have allowed the application and permitted the petitioner to file written statement in view of no objection given by the plaintiff on 23.6.2004. He further submitted that since voluminous documents were required to file written statement and the same were not tracable the defendants could not file written statement within the period prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be set aside. In support of his submission the learned counsel relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this court in Anil Kushabrao Phutane vs. madhukar Kushabrao Phutane (2006 (1) Mh. L.J. 369. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. I find that there is no merit in the present petition. Perusal of the application discloses that the only ground given in the said application is that the office of the defendant no.2 is situated at Aurangabad and case of the plaintiff is at Thana and that necessary documents were not received in time. No doubt the Apex Court has held that the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory but directory. But, at the same time the apex court has held that in order to permit the defendants in a suit to file written statement beyond the period of 90 days the defendant has to make out exceptional case. Having regard to the reasons given in the application it can not be said that the defendants had made out exceptional case for filing written statement beyond the 3` period prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I find no legal infirmity or perversity in the findings given by the trial court. Hence, no case is made out for interference by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence, the petition is rejected. Judge patle