The main legal point established in the judgment is the legislative mandate for timely filing of written statements and the court's discretion to extend the time prescribed under O. 8, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) BY my order dated 25-2-2004, i had allowed the writ petition and had directed the learned trial Judge to accept the written statement filed by the defendant, though belatedly, and to proceed with the suit. This was in the forenoon session.

( 2 ) IN the afternoon session, one of the learned counsels appearing for the respondent in some other case did bring to my notice the observations made by the Apex court in the case of Dr. J. J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635 : (AIR 2002 SC 2931) and contended that the defendant before the trial Court is expected to file the written statement within the time prescribed under the provisions of O. 8, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (amended provisions ). Having gone through the decision, I was of the view that I might have committed a mistake in the morning session while allowing the writ petition. Therefore, I had directed the registry to post this matter for Being Spoken To on 26-2-2004 to hear the learned counsel for the parties to the lis once over again.

( 3 ) AT this stage itself, I should notice that similar matters were posted before me on earlier occasions also. In fact, I had allowed the writ petitions condoning the delay in filing the written statements and then had directed the learned. trial Judges to accept the written statements and to proceed with the suit. In some cases, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents themselves had agreed for disposal of the writ petitions and to direct the trial Court to permit the defendants to file their written statements. In some cases, the delay in filing the written statement was just three (3) to ten (10) days, and therefore, in the ends of justice, I had thought that the defendants should be allowed to file their written statements and to participate in the proceedings before the trial Court.

( 4 ) SINCE I had not signed the order in the present writ petition, I thought it would be proper to re-hear the learned counsels for the parties in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in Dr. J. J. Merchants case (2002) 6 SCC 635 : (AIR 2002 sc 2931 ).

( 5 ) BEFORE I notice the contentions canvassed by Sri S. P. Shankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, let me briefly notice the fact situation in the writ petition : defendants writ petition before this Court inter alia calling in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders made by the trial court 011 LA. Nos. 1 and 2 file for recalling the order dated 30-10-2002 and for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

( 6 ) PLAINTIFFS suit before the trial Court is for recovery of possession of suit schedule property from the defendant. Suit summons was served on the defendant. The date fixed for first appearance was on 10-10-2002. On that day. the defendant appeared before the trial Court and requested for time to file the written statement. The request was acceded to by the learned trial Judge and the matter was adjourned to 30-10-2002.

( 7 ) ON 30-10-2002, plaintiff and defendant and their learned counsels were not present before the Court and since written statement was not filed within 30 days, the trial Court adjourned the case for recording of the evidence of the plaintiff : The order made by the trial Court on 30-10-2002 reads as under : "no representation. Written statement not filed within 30 days. Plaintiffs evidence by 28-11-2002. "

( 8 ) SINCE plaintiff was not present before the Court on 28-11-2002, the suit came to be adjourned for plaintiffs evidence finally by 2-1-2003.

( 9 ) ON 2-1-2003, the defendant filed two applications before the trial Court under S. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. First application (LA. No. 1) was to set aside the orders made by the trial Court on 30-10-2002 and the second application (LA. No. 2) seeking permission of the Court to file the written statement along with the verifying affidavit and list with nine (9) documents. 10. The trial Court had adjourned the pro