1. This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 18.02.2011, in I.A.No.728 of 2010 in O.S.No.137 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent for perpetual injunction. The suit summons were served on the petitioners on 31.07.2010. The petitioners filed a detailed counter affidavit in the IA filed by the respondent for temporary injunction on 06.08.2010. Even though the petitioners were required to file the written statement within 90 days of service of summons as envisaged in Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, they have failed to file the written statement within the stipulated time and as such, their right to file the written statement was forfeited on 21.12.2010. Therefore, the petitioners filed I.A.No.728 of 2010 under Section 151 CPC to receive the written statement. The trial Court on considering the rival pleas of the parties rejected the said application by the order under revision.

3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court has observed that the reasons put forth by the petitioners, namely, that petitioner No.1 fell ill due to jaundice in the 2nd week of November, 2010 and petitioner No.2 joined as teacher on 04.11.2010, are not supported by any documentary evidence. The trial Court also observed that the petitioners did not assign any reason or cause for non-submission of the written statement prior to the month of November or at least till 21.12.2010.

4. Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that even though Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is couched in mandatory terms, the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments held that the said provision is procedural and not substantive in nature and that the stipulation of filing written statement within 90 days contained in the said provision only works as a constraint on the defendant and that in appropriate cases, this provision would not limit or curtail the power of the civil Court to extend time, if proper explanation is offered for non-filing of written statement within stipulated time. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court inR.N.Jadi& Brothers and others v. Subhashchandra (2007) 6 SCC 420.

5. Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the above contention and stated that even if Order VIII Order 1 CPC is construed in the manner as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court has given categorical finding that the petitioners failed to offer satisfactory explanation for accepting the written statement beyond the prescribed period.

6. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court in R.N.Jadi& Brothers (supra), while following the earlier judgments in Kailashv. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480, RaniKusum v. Kanchan Devi (2005) 6 SCC 705, and Sk.SalimHaji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar (2006) 1 SCC 46inter alia held as under:

“Order 8 Rule 1 after the amendment casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. The provision does not deal with the power of the court and also does not specifically take away the power of the court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for. Further, the nature of the provision contained in Order 8 Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. Substituted Order 8 Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and the petitioners approaching the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the court faced with frequent praye