JUDGMENT

1. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 07-12-2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 8A-2017 by Civil Judge Class-I, Sendhwa, District Badwani whereby application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC filed by him for closing the right of defendant/respondent for filing its written statement has been rejected.

2. Facts of the case are that on 27-02-2017 the plaintiff instituted an action for declaration and permanent injunction. Upon service of summons upon it the defendant entered appearance before the trial Court on 02-03-2017 and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint which was rejected on 07-03-2017 fixing the case for 15-03-2017 for filing of written statement. Thereafter time was again granted to defendant to file the written statement. It had also raised an objection as regards maintainability of the suit under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which objection was also turned down. Time was granted to defendant to file written statement. Thereafter the Court was vacant and subsequently defendant again prayed for and was granted time for filing the written statement. Being aggrieved by the order rejecting its application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC the defendant preferred Civil Revision No. 87/2017 before this Court in which by order dated 30-08-2017 further proceedings of the suit were stayed. The defendant also preferred an appeal before the Second Additional District Judge against rejection of its objection as regards maintainability of the suit under the provisions of the Act, 1996 in which the record of the Civil Suit was requisitioned. The case was then fixed awaiting record of the case from 15-09-2017 upto 20-06-2018.

3. In the meanwhile on 13-07-2017 the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC for closing the right of defendant to file its written statement. During pendency of the application the written statement was filed by the defendant on 14-03-2018. It also filed its reply to the application on 07-09-2019 submitting that it had every hope of success in the Civil Revision preferred by it against the order passed by the trial Court and believed that plaint would be rejected hence did not file its written statement at that time. The further proceedings of the suit had been stayed by this Court by order dated 09-08-2017 in the Civil Revision and the record of the case had also been called for by the Second Additional District Judge in appeal preferred by it under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 against order of the trial Court. Before the record was received back it filed the written statement. It was further submitted that written statement could not be filed within time in anticipation of result of proceedings taken by it before the superior Courts. It was hence submitted that the delay in filing the written statement deserves to be condoned particularly when the same has already come on record.

4. By the impugned order plaintiff's application has been rejected by the trial Court by observing that the reasons as furnished by defendant for the delay in filing the written statement are bonafide and proper, that the period of ninety days as provided for under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC for filing of written statement is directory and not mandatory and that a litigant should get opportunity to put forth his case and should not be denied the opportunity merely on technical grounds.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. The delay in filing the written statement was substantially huge and could not have been condoned as written statement was filed beyond period of ninety days. The reasons as have been given by the trial Court are not legally justifiable. No application was filed by defendant for condonation of delay in filing the written statement hence the delay could not