Key Points:- The court held that Order VIII, Rule 1, as amended, is procedural and aims to expedite hearings, not to deny plaintiffs relief; it allows extension beyond 90 days in exceptional circumstances. (!) (!) (!) - Written statements must be filed within 30 days from service of summons and, within an extended period, but no later than 90 days from service; failure to extend can be addressed if the court permits. (!) (!) - The power to extend beyond 90 days can be exercised in exceptional cases, and the consequences of non-extension are not expressly provided but may be implied; equity and preventing prejudice to parties are considered. (!) (!) - The procedural rules should serve justice and not become a barrier; a fortuitous holiday extending the filing date can be considered within the time extended. (!) (!) - Committee and judicial discussions concluded that whether the 90-day maximum is mandatory or directory depends on object and context, with emphasis on preventing delay and ensuring fair opportunity to litigants. (!) (!)

How to determine whether extension of time beyond the maximum 90 days for filing written statement is permissible?What is the nature and purpose of Order VIII Rule 1 in relation to filing written statements within 30 days and extended up to 90 days?What are the principles for treating procedural rules as mandatory or directory in the context of extending time for written statements?