1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3426 OF 2005. Nasik Diecesan Council PTR No.D-2 Nasik, through Trustee, Avinash Gurupad Balkundi and another ... Petitioners. Versus Lalbee W/o Shaikh Adam since deceased through L.Rs. Shaikh Aslam Babasaheb and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Amol Kakade, advocate holding for Mr.Sanjay Mundhe, advocate for the petitioners. Respondents served - absent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 17.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith 2 and heard finally by consent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the Respondent Nos. 1-A to 1-C who are original plaintiffs. 3. By this petition, the petitioners impugn order dated 26.7.2004, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmednagar, on application (Exh.63) in Special Civil Suit No.62/2003. 4. The application was for allowing the petitioners to file their written statement and to set aside the order of "No W.S." By order dated 28.4.2004, the learned Civil Judge directed that the suit shall proceed against the petitioners who were defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit, without their W.S. They filed application (Exh.63) on 9.6.2004 and urged to set aside the No W.S. order and take their written statement on record. They explained that the documents and information could not be received to prepare their written statement because the previous record keeper of the defendant No.1 Trust had 3 left the service and the record was not traced out inspite of sincere efforts. They submitted that their written statement was required to be taken on record because various beneficiaries of the Respondent No.1 Trust were likely to be affected. 5. By the impugned order, the application came to be dismissed only for the reason that it was filed beyond period of 90 days from date of first appearance. The learned Civil Judge did not find the reasons given by the petitioners as unacceptable or imaginary. The learned Civil Judge did not examine whether the explanation given by the petitioners could be accepted. The written statement can be permitted even after period of 90 days is over if there is justification putforth by the defendant. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 2 are directory in nature. This Court in "Mangala W/o Pradeep Lambade Vs. Madhubala d/o Madhukar Mishra" 2009(1) Mh.L.J.322, held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule (1) of the C.P.C. are directory in nature. So also in "M/s R.N.Jadi and Brothers 4 and others Vs. Subhashchandra" A.I.R. 2007 Supreme Court 2571, the Apex Court has held that the provision is of directory in nature. In this view of the matter, the application could not be rejected simply because it was filed after 90 days from the date of first appearance as provided U/o VIII Rule (1) of the C.P.C. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The application (Exh.63) shall be allowed by the learned Civil Judge and the written statement of the petitioners be permitted. Rule made absolute accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp342605