The court has the discretion to extend the time for filing the written statement for good and sufficient cause, and a delay in filing the written statement could be compensated by cost.

Manoj Misra, J. -- Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh for the petitioner; and Sri R.M. Saggi for the plaintiff-respondents.

The present petition has been filed against an order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Second Additional Judge Small Causes, Kanpur Nagar in Suit No.1350 of 2012 by which he has accepted the objection of the plaintiff-respondents submitted not to accept the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner and has directed that case shall proceed ex-parte against the defendant. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Kanpur Nagar by which the revision of the petitioner against the order dated 10.10.2014 has been dismissed.

2. A perusal of the record would go to show that summons of the suit were served on the defendant-petitioner on 04.08.2012. The defendant-petitioner after putting in his appearance in the suit prayed for supply of copy of the plaint and the documents appended thereto, upon which, the court directed the plaintiff to supply the plaint and documents to the defendant. It appears that on the margin of the order sheet of the case, on 06.12.2012 the defendant made an endorsement that copy of the plaint, etc. has been received by him. On 15.03.2013, the written statement was filed. Application 40-Ga was filed by the plaintiff-respondents on 27.02.2014 that is after eleven months of filing of the written statement to take written statement off the record on the ground that it was filed after 90 days.

3. The court below by impugned order dated 10.10.2014 accepted the application 40-Ga and directed that the written statement shall not be taken as part of the record and the case would proceed ex-parte. This order has been affirmed by the revisional court.

4. Assailing both the orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case the court below has not accepted the written statement on record because from the written statement it appeared that there was overwriting on the date of verification of the written statement. The word September was scored out and was replaced by the word March which suggested that the written statement was prepared in the month of September and not in the month of March. It has been submitted that such consideration ought not to have been made by the court inasmuch as the court below itself found that on the margin of the order sheet it was written that the copy of the plaint was received by the defendant on 06.12.2012. Meaning thereby that preparation of the written statement in the month of September was only a draft preparation because final preparation could only be made after receipt of the plaint. It has been submitted that once the court had directed the plaintiff to supply the plaint copy and the documents it should be deemed that plaint was not supplied to the defendant at the time of service of summons and, therefore, the court had directed supply of copy of the plaint as well as other documents, which were served on the defendant on 06.12.2012. It has been submitted that if the filing of the written statement is counted from 06.12.2012, the written statement was filed on 15.03.2013, which means just about nine days after expiry of 90 days. It has been submitted that in the case of Kailash Vs. Nankhu 2005 Law Suit (SC) 621 the Apex Court has held that the maximum time limit provided by the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory and in fact the court can always extend the time for filing of the written statement for good and sufficient cause. It has been submitted that in the instant case not only the written statement has been filed but the delay was of a very short period of nine days only, which could easily have been compensated by cost. It has been submitted that the objection raised by the plaintiff-respondents was at a belated stage, after eleven months of filing of the written statement, therefore, their grievance could have been compensated by co