The upper limit of 90 days fixed by Rule 1 of Order 8, C.P.C. is merely directory and extension of the limit is at the discretion of the Court, but it must be done for satisfactory reasons only.

The judgment of the Court was as follows:––

The application dated 17.07.2006 under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the Order No.8 dated 23.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Barrackpore whereby she accepted the written statement filed by the respondent/opposite party in the Mat. Suit No.1702 of 2005 which was filed beyond the statutory period of 90 days and without assigning any reason therefor.

2. The Mat. Suit No.1702 of 2005 was filed by the husband/petitioner before the learned trial Court against his wife/opposite party under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 23rd June, 2006 was the date fixed for hearing of the opposite party/wife's petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the husband/petitioner in this application had filed written objection against that petition. On that day the opposite party/wife also filed written statement and in the context of the written statement having been filed beyond the statutory period of 90 days the husband/petitioner filed an application on 23.06.2006 praying for pronouncement of judgment or for such order as the learned Court might think fit. Learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party/wife in the learned trial Court, as per the order impugned, submitted before the learned trial Court that he was ready for hearing of the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and there was no hard and fast rule that at the time of hearing of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act appearance of the parties was required. The submission was made in the context that on 23.06.2006 which was the date for hearing of the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act the petitioner/husband was not present but was represented through his lawyer. After recording submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties the learned trial Court accepted the written statement in the suit and accordingly disposed of the petitioner/husband's petition of the same date wherein the wife's not filing the written statement in the suit within the statutory period of 90 days was taken exception of and objected to. However, the learned trial Court fixed 20.07.2006 for hearing of the application of the opposite party/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3. In the context as above what is challenged is the learned trial Court's acceptance of the written statement beyond the statutory period of limitation without assigning any reason therefor and without having any petition before the Court praying for acceptance of the written statement stating the grounds of the circumstances for not filing the written statement within the period of limitation.

4. Mr. Abhijit Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the petitioner/husband in support of the application takes me to the decision in Motiur Rahman Mollah v. Sk. Ashar Ali & Ors. as reported in 2005 (1) CHN 478 to argue that in terms of the statute total period cannot exceed 90 days from the date of service of the summons on the defendant and the defendant having not filed written statement within the period of the 90 days the written statement filed beyond the period could not be gratuitously accepted by the learned trial Court.

5. Mr. S. C. Karar, learned Advocate for the opposite party/wife takes me to the decision in Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. as reported in 2005 (3) ICC 405 and the decision in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India as reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353 in support of his submission that the upper limit of 90 days fixed by Rule 1 of Order 8, C.P.C. is merely directory and extension of the limit is at the discretion of the Court and it is, therefore, submitted that the Court did not commit any mistake or irregularity in accepting the written statement filed by the opposite party/wife.

6. I have heard the learned Advocate for the parties but feel unable to sustain the order impugned even with the aid of the two de