1. IA No. 3014/06 is an application under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') for striking off the defence of the defendants and for pronouncing the judgment against the defendants. Reply to the application has been filed. IA No. 5506/06 is an application by defendants 1 & 2, hereinafter referred to as 'defendants', under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. Both the applications are disposed of by this order.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present application are as under: The suit was presented on 19.7.2005. On 20.7.2005 this court, inter alia, passed an order for issue of summons through ordinary process as well as through Regd. A.D. The defendants were served with summons on 2.8.2005. On 18.8.2005 Mr.S.K.Tiwari and Mr.Y.R.Sharma put in appearance for the defendants. The summons required the defendants to file their written statement within 30 days from the date of the service. The written statement of defendant Nos.l & 2, therefore, should have been filed by 1.9.2005. Although the defendants put in appearance on 18.8.2005 through Shri S.K.Tiwari and Shri Y.R.Sharma, Advocates, no written statement was filed on that day. Nor was any written statement filed on the adjourned date of 31.8.2005. The defendants moved an application being IA No. 6552/05 asking for permission to shift defendants' good from their godown to their factory which was allowed. The case was then listed for 5.12.2005. In none of these dates, the defendants asked for enlargement of time for filing their written state- ment. On 5.12.2005, the counsel for the defendants stated that a compromise had been proposed. The court directed that the defendants may file their written statement within four weeks and the plaintiff may file its replication within three weeks thereafter. Before the adjourned date, the plaintiff filed the application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC which was listed on 14.3.2006. Counsel for the defendants stated that he would file a reply. Accordingly, the matter was listed for hearing on 15.5.2006. Written statement of defendant Nos.1 & 2 was presented in the meantime on 28.3.2006. Along with the written statement the application under consideration, i.e., for enlargement of time for filing the written statement is also presented.

3. Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC prescribes the time for filing the written statement and it reads as under:

."1. Written statement. - 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."

4. In view of this provision the written statement is required to be filed within 90 days from the date of service which in the present case ended on 1.11.2005. The question is whether the court can extend the time beyond the period of 90 days. This question was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 480 and the Supreme Court has held as under:

"42. Ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 has to be honoured. The defendant should be vigilant. No sooner the writ of summons is served on him he should take steps for drafting his defence and filing the written statement on the appointed date of hearing without waiting for the arrival of the date appointed in the summons for his appearance in the court. The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons