S.N.Hussain, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are defendants 1st set in Title Suit No. 87 of 2004, which was filed by plaintiffs-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration of their title and also for declaration that the defendants -petitioners did not acquire any title in the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 25-1-2004 executed by opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 (defendants 2nd set) in favour of these petitioners.

2. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 21-12-2004 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Sub-Judge-III, Patna City, had rejected their petition for accepting written statement filed on their behalf in the Court below on 15-10-2004, beyond the period of ninety days as prescribed under Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity).

3. The short fact of this case is that the above mentioned title suit was filed by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in the year 2004, whereafter notices and summons were issued to the defendants including the petitioners which were served on 10 6-2004 by hanging the copies of the summons on the door of their house and immediately thereafter they appeared in the suit on 15-6-2004. On the next date i.e. 5-7-2004 the defendants-petitioners filed a time petition for filing their written statement which was allowed and thereafter on 13-7-2004 also a similar petition was filed and time was again granted to the defendants-petitioners for filing their written statement. Thereafter, injunction petition filed by the plaintiffs was considered arid the same was disposed of on 21-9-2004, whereafter the next date 14-10-2004 was fixed for filing written statement by the defendants. On 14-10-2004 also no written statement was filed and the matter was taken up for hearing under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code and ultimately on 15-10-2004 the defendants petitioners filed their written statement.

4. The learned Court below rejected the said written statement on the ground that summons were served on 10-6-2004, hence the filing of the written statement on 15-10-2004 was beyond the period of ninety days as prescribed under the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code. The learned Court below held that when the written statement is not filed within thirty days from the date of service of summons on the defendants, the trial Court may extend the time for filing the written statement for reasons to be recorded in writing but it shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons, as per the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code.

5. It is an admitted fact that the written statement was filed by the defendants petitioners 36 days beyond the expiry of the period of 90 days as prescribed Under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code. The issues have not yet been framed in the suit, which is only about a year old, and prima facie the defendants-petitioners appear to have shown some reasons giving sufficient grounds for the said delay, but here the question in issue is whether the trial court, can accept the written statement filed beyond the aforesaid prescribed period of ninety days from the date of service of summons. In my view this is not a question of limitation, rather it is a question of jurisdiction as to whether the Court has the jurisdiction to pass orders for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit by way of accepting the pleadings of the defendants after the period fixed, specially when they had been able to show exceptional and genuine circumstances for the said delay and also when by exercising the said jurisdiction neither the other side is put to any loss nor any delay is caused to the suit.

6. Before the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999 (Act 46 of 1999) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2002 (Act 22 of 2002) the provision of Rule 1 of Order VIII in the Code of 1908 was as follows : Rule 1 : "Written statement.--