JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — The petitioner is defendant No.6 in C.S. No.1 of 2002 pending before the Civil Judge (SD), First Court, Cuttack. The said suit is one for partition and for setting aside a sale deed executed in favour of a stranger purchaser and for other ancillary reliefs. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file his written statement within ninety days as mandatorily required under Order 8, Rule 1 CPC. He was therefore set ex parte. There¬after, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order. He also filed a written statement with a petition to the accept the same, but the trial Court rejected both the petitions on the ground that in conso¬nance with Order 8, Rule 1 CPC, the written statement filed by a defendant after ninety days could not be accepted. The Court below also relied upon several decisions.

3. There is no quarrel about the proposition that after lapse of ninety days a written statement cannot be accepted as per provision of Order 8, Rule 1 CPC. But then, Order 8 Rule 9 CPC clearly stipulates that a Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties, and fi