The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, though worded in the negative form, can be construed as directory, allowing for the condonation of delay in filing the written statement in exceptional cases.

1. Heard Shri A. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Petitioners and Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel for respondents waives service.

3. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 4/06/2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Civil Suit No.51/2010 whereby the written statement filed by the petitioners in the suit filed by the respondents was not allowed to be considered on the ground that the said written statement was not filed within the time prescribed under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. Shri Kamat, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the written statement was filed belatedly in view of the fact that requisite sanctions had to be obtained from the concerned Department for the purpose of appointing an advocate to represent the State Government and thereafter there was further delay on account of the fact that the concerned Department was engaged with some other administrative activities which prevented them from giving the necessary instructions to the concerned advocate to file the written statement. The learned Counsel further pointed out that an application was filed by the petitioners on 25/01/2011 seeking time to file the written statement and the learned Judge granted the said application subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-and fixed the matter to file the written statement on 15/02/2011. In the meanwhile, an application was also filed by the respondents at Exhibit 11 not to take the written statement on record. On 15/02/2011 none appeared for the petitioners and the matter was posted as last opportunity to 8/03/2011 for filing the reply to the said Exhibit 11. Immediately thereafter the learned Counsel pointed out that on the next date of hearing i.e. on 8/03/2011 the written statement came to be filed by the petitioners along with the list of documents. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioners have also filed an application for condonation of delay and by the impugned order the application for condonation of delay as well as the application filed by the respondents came to be disposed of by passing the impugned order. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the inaction on the part of the petitioners in not filing the written statement within the time prescribed cannot be said to be deliberate as considering the exigencies of the administration of the petitioners, specific formalities have to be complied with for the purpose of defending the proceedings in the Court of law which resulted in the delay in filing the written statement. Learned Counsel further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for condoning the delay in filing the written statement and, as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order. The learned Counsel has pointed out that there are no special reasons nor any legal grounds made out by the petitioners to condone the delay in filing the written statement within the time prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Apex Court has held that filing of such written statement within the period of 90 days is mandatory and there is no justification made out by the petitioners to file the written statement belatedly. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353 in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu V/s. Union of India.The learned Counsel further submitted that considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the