The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory, and the court has the power to extend the time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided.

JUDGMENT :

(Krishna Rao, J.) :

1. The defendant has filed the present application being GA 3 of 2023 praying for extension of time to file written statement in CS No. 144 of 2014.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,90,29,906.20/-along with interest @ 18% per annum. The defendant had also filed a suit being CS No. 228 of 2014 praying for a decree of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profit. Both the parties have filed two separate interlocutory applications being GA 2496 of 2014 and GA 3257 of 2014 seeking interim relief. Both the parties have preferred an appeal against the order passed by this Court. By an order dated 7th November, 2014, the Hon’ble Appellate Court directed the plaintiff to hand over the entire premises to the plaintiff along with an amount of Rs. 59,90,464/-. The Appellate Court had further directed the defendant to return an amount of Rs. 1,44,09,080/-being the security deposit to the plaintiff. The order passed by the Appellate Authority has been duly complied with.

3. By an order dated 18th December, 2015 on the prayer made by the Learned Counsel for the respective parties of both the suits, this Court directed that the suit go out of the list for the time being with the liberty to mention.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the defendant submits that as the defendant was facing severe financial crisis and in the mean time, in the month of October, 2016, the possession of the premises was also taken over by the International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited in terms of the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and subsequently only on 17th October, 2018, the said Company had issued no-dues certificate in favour of the defendant and released the charge over the demised immovable property after payment of all dues by the defendant.

5. The Learned Counsel for the defendant submits that due to the aforementioned financial crisis, the defendant was not able to take appropriate step and thus written statement could not be filed within the time prescribed under law. He submits that till the month of March, 2020, the plaintiff could not file written statement and in the mean time Pandemic Covid-19 intervened and there was no occasion for the defendant to take any step in the suit.

6. The Learned Counsel for the defendant submitted that on normalization of the situation after Pandemic Covid-19, the defendant contacted his erstwhile advocate on record for taking appropriate steps in the suit but subsequently the defendant came to know that the erstwhile advocate on record Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala is not keeping well and was virtually indisposed and is not coming to Court regularly.

7. The Learned Counsel for the defendant submits that thereafter the defendant has taken a decision to change the advocate and had contacted the present advocate on record on 2nd May, 2022 to proceed with the matter.

8. The erstwhile advocate had handed over all the cause papers to the defendant after six months and thereafter on 15th December, 2022, the defendant had provided the papers to the present advocate on record and after going through the papers, it was found that written statement has not been filed and thereafter appropriate steps were taken after getting proper instruction from the defendant for preparing written statement.

9. Learned Advocate for the defendant submits that as the written statement is ready and if this Court will allow the defendant to file written statement, the defendant will file written statement within a week.

10. Learned Advocate for the defendant has relied upon the following judgments:

i. (2005) 4 SCC 480 (Kailash –vs-Nanhku & Ors.).

ii. (1998) 7 SCC 123 (N. Balakrishnan –vs-M. Krishnamurthy).

iii. (1984) 4 SCC 66 (O.P. Kathpalia –vs-Lakhmir Singh (dead) & Ors.).

iv. (2018) 6 SCC 639 (Atcom Technologies Ltd. –vs- Y.A. Chunawala & Company & Ors.).

11. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that t