Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Vijay Prakash, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents.

2. The order dated 31.5.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge in exercise of power as Judge, Small Cause Court, rejecting the application of the defendant-revisionist (paper No. 33-Ga) for taking on record its written statement is subject of this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887.

3. It appears that the plaintiff-respondents filed SCC Suit No. 75 of 2013 for eviction of the defendant-revisionist on the ground of arrears of rent after determining its tenancy. The defendant-revisionist in the said suit had put in its appearance on 20.11.2013. The defendant-revisionist on 24.7.2015 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The said application was rejected vide order dated 18.1.2016.

4. The defendant revisionist after rejection of the above application filed an application on 17.2.2016 to allow time to challenge the above order before the High Court. The application was allowed and the order was challenged in SCC Revision No. 75 of 2016 which is pending.

5. Thereafter the defendant-revisionist on 24.2.2016 filed an application seeking time to file written statement and the Court permitted time for filing written statement in accordance with the provisions of C.P.C. subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1000/-.

6. The defendant-revisionist thereafter on 4.3.2016 submitted application paper No. 33-Ga enclosing written statement seeking permission to file it.

7. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the impugned order as Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. permits only 30 days time for filing written statement from the date of appearance which can be extended by the Court to a maximum of 90 days.

8. Admittedly, the defendant-revisionist had not filed the written statement within the above period of 30 days or the extended period of 90 days but much later for which the Court found no justification.

9. The submission of Sri Vijay Prakash, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist is that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. are not mandatory but directory in nature. The time provided therein for filing written statement can be extended even beyond 90 days for sufficient reasons. Since the defendant-revisionist bonafidely, on legal advise was pursuing its application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. the time spent thereon was liable to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court below therefore, ought to have accepted the written statement by extending time beyond 90 days of its appearance in the case.

10. Sri Ranjit Saxena on the other hand, contends that the object of the defendant-revisionist was to delay the disposal of the suit by filing unnecessary applications. No valid reason existed for extending the time for filing written statement beyond the period of 90 days stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C.

11. Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. makes provisions for the filing of written statement, set-off and counter claim. Rule 1 of Order 8 C.P.C. as amended, provides that the defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence. The proviso to it lays down that where the written statement is not filed within a period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file it for reasons to be recorded and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit but not beyond 90 days from the date of service of summons.

12. In other words, the aforesaid provision mandates for filing of written statement within 30 days of service of summons upon the defendant which period can be extended for reasons to be recorded to a maximum period of 90 days from the date of service of summons.

13. The use of the word ‘shall’ therein prima facie makes the provision mandatory in the nature but as sometimes the use of the word ‘shall’ i