JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This S.C.C. Revision is directed against the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by 16th Additional District Judge, Varanasi in S.C.C. Suit No. 18 of 2016 (Pushpa Devi & another Vs. Amit Kumar Singh) whereby the opportunity of defendant/revisionist to file written statement has been closed and by the orders dated 27.02.2018 and 31.10.2018, the applications for recall of the order dated 24.11.2017 have been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that S.C.C. Suit No.18 of 2016 was filed by plaintiffs/respondents praying for a decree of arrears of rent and eviction against the defendant/revisionist on 20.07.2016. The defendant/revisionist appeared in the aforesaid suit on 14.10.2016 and filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. which was rejected on 13.08.2017. Another application praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaint averments regarding the ownership of the suit property are incorrect and they have not been corrected, was filed by the defendant/revisionist which was rejected by the order dated 24.11.2017 and opportunity of defendant/revisionist to file written statement has been closed.

4. Thereafter the defendant/revisionist has filed recall and review applications which have been dismissed by the trial court and hence, he is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the court below is not in accordance with law. The court may have rejected the application (paper no. 75C) but the simultaneous closure of opportunity to file written statement is not in accordance with law. Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. is not mandatory but directory and written statement of the defendant can be taken on record after the expiry of 90 days from the date of service of notice. He has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Zolba Vs. Keshao and others reported in MANU/SC/7444/2008 , wherein the Apex Court has held that written statement of defendant can be accepted by the court after expiry of period of 90 days from the date of service of summons in exceptionally hard cases. Further reliance has been made on the judgement of this Court in the case of Farooque Vs. Additional District Judge , Balrampur and Ors. reported in MANU/UP/1101/2019, wherein the court after granting last opportunity of filing written statement to the defendant, closed the same and the recall application filed for recalling the order, was rejected. This Court held that the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. is not mandatory in nature and after setting-aside the impugned orders of the trial court, directed the court to accept the written statement of the defendant on record. Last reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Robin Thapa Vs. Rohit Dora , AIR 2019 SC 3225 , wherein the Apex Court held that ordinarily, a litigation is based on adjudication on the merits of the contentions of the parties. Litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice does require that as far as possible, adjudication be done on merits. The Apex Court set-aside the ex-parte decree in this case at the execution stage after imposing cost of Rs. 50,000/-on the defendant apart from the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in putting the decree of specific performance of contract of sale to execution.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has submitted that the court rig