Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous application has been filed against the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the learned Munsif, Sadar, Sitamarhi, in T.S. No. 11 of 2018, whereby he has rejected the application dated 30.01.2019, filed by petitioners-defendants for recall of the order dated 12.09.2018 (wrongly mentioned as 19.11.2018) debarring from filing their written statement in the suit.

3. The facts of this case, in brief relevant for disposal of this application, are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed T.S. No. 11 of 2018, in the Court of the learned Munsif, Sitamarhi Sadar, for declaration of their title over Schedule-II land and for recovery of their possession of the suit land. After service of summons, the petitioners-defendants appeared in the case on 31.07.2018 and were given last opportunity on 07.09.2018 to file their written statement but defendants failed to file their written statement within time and due to that reason vide order dated 12.09.2018 the Trial Court debarred the defendants from filing of their written statement. The defendants by filing written statement filed petition for recall of the said order stating that for want of the required papers they would not filed their written statement within time. The learned Trial Court observed that the Court cannot exercise inherent power to extend the time period provided by the law and found that no sufficient cause had been shown for delay of about 4 months in filing written statement and directed the plaintiffs to proceed in accordance with Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and to give their evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had duly explained the reason of delay in filing written statement within the prescribed time and they have the good case on merit and if the written statement is not allowed to be taken on record the great prejudice would cause to the petitioners and the interest of justice requires the adjudication of case on merit. He further submits that the time limit to file written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 is a directory and not mandatory and the courts have the power to extend the time limit beyond 90 days grace period as well in non-commercial suits on the sufficient and valid reasons to be recorded.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the Court has power to extend the time period. He submits that heavy cost may be imposed on the petitioners for not filing the written statement within the prescribed time period and causing delay in proceeding of the suit.

6. The catena of Judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, interpreting Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, had settled the position that the requirement to file written statement within 30 days (extendable to 90 days) of receipt of summons is directory and not a mandatory requirement. Procedural law is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. In the decision of Kailash vs. Nankhu (2005) 4 SCC 480 and Salem Advocates Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, it has been held that Order VIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being in the domain of Procedural Law, is directory and not mandatory. Further, in Atcom Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Y.A. Chunawala (2018) 6 SCC 639 the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated its prior holding that when seeking condonation of delay beyond 90 days period, the defendant is required to furnish a proper and satisfactory explanation. A decision to condone delay beyond 90 days extendable period is not to be granted in a mechanical manner.

7. In Kailash vs. Nankhu & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480, the three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the purpose of providing the time Schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The process of justice may be speed up and hurried but the fairness which is a basi