I.A. Ansari, J.

1. I have heard Mr. Roy. learned Counsel for the Defendant-Petitioners, and Mr. S. Dutta. learned Counsel for Plaintiff-opposite party.

2. The opposite party hererin instituted Money Suit No. 20/09 for realization of money allegedly given, by way of loan, to the Defendants, who are Petitioners in this revision petition, summons were issued, on 28.10.2009 to the Defendant. The statutory period of 90 days, meant for filing of the written statement expired on 26-1-2010.

However on the basis of a petition filed by the Defendants, the learned Munsiff No. 1, Morigaon. passed an order, on 8-2-2010, allowing time to the Defendants up to 6-3-2010 to file their written statement. On the date so fixed, i.e. on 6-3-2010, the Defendants filed their written statement. Along with their written statement, the Petitioners also filed an application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in fling the written statement. This application, made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, came to be registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 4/10. By an order, dated 11-3-2010, the learned Court below rejected the said application on the ground that the Defendants had failed to make out any case for condonation of delay. The written statement of the Defendants were accordingly not accepted. Aggrieved by the order, dated 11-3-2010, the Petitioners have impugned the same by filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. While considering the revision petition, it should be noted that the statutory period for filing of written statement, in a suit, is 90 days. Ordinarily, a written statement shall be filed within the statutory period of 90 days from the date on which the summons is received by the Defendant. However, in exceptional circumstances, the Courts have the power to extend the period for the purpose of enabling a Defendant to file his written statement.

4. I may pause here to point out that the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'the Code') stands, broadly speaking, divided into two parts and while the main body of the Code, which consists of Sections, creates jurisdiction for the civil Courts, the Rules, framed under various Orders, indicate the procedure for exercise of such jurisdiction. To put it differently, the Rules, framed under various Orders of the Code, lay down the procedure for exercise of the powers conferred on such Courts by various Sections embodied in the Code.

5. Order VIII, Rule 1 as well as Order 8, Rule 10 of the Code, which warrant filing of written statement within a period of 90 days from the date of service of summons on the Defendant, are part of the procedural law. The procedural law is handmaid of justice and cannot override the necessity to do justice between the parties to the suit. No part of the procedural law and not even Order 8, Rule 1 or Order 8, Rule 10 can, in the absence of any explicit legislative intendment, be treated to have disempowered the Court or can be said to stand in the way of the Court to make exception in an appropriate case and accept a written statement beyond the period of 90 days, though, ordinarily and except in rare and compelling circumstances, acceptance of written statement beyond the requisite period of 90 days is not permissible. (See Sreenivas Basudev (M/s.) v. Vineet Kumar Kothari reported in 2003 (3) GLT 118 : AIR 2007 Gau 5.

6. Making it clear in Kailash v. Nankhu reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 : AIR 2005 SC 2441 that ordinarily, the lime schedule prescribed by Order 8, Rule 1 has to be honoured, the Apex Court has made it clear that a Court may, for reasons to be recorded, in writing, by way of exception, extend the prescribed period of 90 days if the Court is satisfied, on a prayer made, in writing by the Defendant, that the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the Defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice and grave injustice would be occasioned if the tim