1. Heard Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Grover, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith.

3. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30/10/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji ('trial Court') in Special Civil Suit No. 32/2013/A.

4. The respondent has filed the said Special Civil Suit for recovery of money against the petitioners. The summonses for settlement of issues were served on the petitioners on 05/08/2013 for appearance before the trial Court on 07/08/2013. On 07/08/2013, however, the petitioners remained absent and the matter was adjourned to 04/09/2013 by the trial Court, by giving an opportunity to file written statement/reply on that date. Again on 04/09/2013, the petitioners remained absent and in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was given to them by the trial Court to file written statement on 09/10/2013. On 09/10/2013, no hearing could take place as the learned trial Court was on leave. The matter was adjourned to 22/10/2013.

5. On 22/10/2013, the petitioners filed an application before the trial Court for granting them time to file written statement. It was alleged in the said application that the defendants received the copies of the documents and the plaint, as per the Court records, but the said documents seem to have been lost, misplaced and were not furnished to the learned Advocate for the petitioners. The respondent endorsed its objection on the same application. The respondent alleged that no sufficient cause has been disclosed for non-appearance on 07/08/2013 and 04/09/2013 and that admittedly, the summonses were served on the petitioners on 05/08/2013 to appear on 07/08/2013. It was further alleged that the petitioners had approached the Court with unclean hand and, therefore, no time ought to be granted to them.

6. By order dated 30/10/2013, the learned trial Court dismissed the application. The trial Court held that the petitioners have been very careless and negligent as they not only failed to put up their appearance on 07/08/2013 and 04/09/2013, but have not even taken pains to file an application for extension of time within first 30 days and have filed the application under consideration in a most casual manner. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “R. N. Jadi and brothers and others Vs. Subhashchandra” reported in (2007) 6 SCC 420, the trial Court observed that the defendants did not show sufficient cause for extension of time to file written statement and that the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. can be stretched only in rare and exceptional cases, which the petitioners failed to prove. This order is impugned in the present petition.

7. Order VIII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. provides as under:

“O.VIII, R.1.- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons”

8. Thus, from the above provision, it is clear that normally, written statement has to be filed by the defendant within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him. If the defendant does not file the written statement within 30 days then he can be allowed to file the same beyond that day on other dates to be specified by the Court till the completion of 90 days, by recording reasons. The provision does not say that if the defendant is not in a position to file the written statement within 30 days from the da