The time limit for filing a written statement can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases, and the court's discretion to extend the time should not be routinely exercised.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. - This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside the order dated 12.03.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by trial Court, whereby respondent/defendants were allowed to file written statement at the stage of defendant evidence.

2. The facts of the case are, the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 22.10.1994. A perusal of the short orders placed on record as Annexure P-2 shows that after notice in the suit respondents/defendants No. 1 and 3 appeared before the Court, and the remaining defendants No.2, 4 and 5 were proceeded against ex parte on 07.10.2013. Subsequently, an application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed only by respondent/defendant No.2 on 29.10.2013. The ex parte proceedings against defendant No.2 were set aside by order dated 09.01.2014 on the statement of the petitioner/plaintiff that he had no objection to setting aside of the same. Again on 12.10.2016, respondent/defendants No.1 to 3 were proceeded against ex parte, as none appeared before the Court despite the case having been called for hearing several times. On 03.11.2016, the defendants' counsel requested for an adjournment to move an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, which was granted, and the case was adjourned to 21.11.2016 for the purpose. Finally, the application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC on behalf of the respondent/defendant No.1 was filed on 12.10.2016. The said application was allowed by the Court vide order dated 13.12.2016, and the ex parte proceedings dated 12.10.2016 were set aside. After that, trial of the suit proceeded, and all the plaintiff's witnesses were examined. He closed his evidence in the affirmative on 30.10.2018. Thereupon, respondents/defendants examined their witnesses DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 on 13.12.2018 in examination-in-chief. DW-1 was partly cross examined and DW-2 completely. The case was then adjourned for the remaining defendants' evidence to 12.03.2019.

3. After examination of the defendants' witnesses, an application dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure P-3) was filed by the respondents/defendants seeking permission to file written statement. The said application was allowed by the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 12.03.2019, without permitting the plaintiff to file reply to the same on the ground that ex parte proceedings against the defendants were set aside. The written statement was taken on record, issues were framed and the case was adjourned for defendants' evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking and there was no occasion for the trial Court to allow the respondent/defendants to file written statement at this belated stage, much beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

5. As per Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, to file the written statement upper time limit of ninety days has been provided. It is only under exceptional circumstances and on account of reasons for delay having been explained to the satisfaction of the Court, that the written statement can be allowed to be filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Atcom Technologies Limited versus Y.A.Chunawala and Co. & others, 2018(3) Civil Court Cases 322 (S.C.). Paragraphs No.15 and 16 of the said judgment read as under:

15. This provision has come up for interpretation before this Court in number of cases. No doubt, the words 'shall not be later than ninety days' do not take away the power of the Court to accept written statement beyond that time and it is also held that the nature of the provision is procedural and it is not a part of substantive law. At the same time, this Court has also mandated that time can be extended only in exceptionall