1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the orders dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) and 9.11.2009 (Annexure P-5),

2. The petitioner/defendant was noticed by the trial Court. The summons were served on him on 2.2.2009. Thereafter, ample opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file written statement but he did not file the written statement. Accordingly, by order dated 17.8.2009 the right to file written statement was closed.

3. Shri T.C. Narwariya, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the earlier counsel did not inform the petitioner/defendant that after receiving summons the petitioner must file written statement. Later on, another counsel was engaged to file an application on 22.9.2009 under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application was decided by order dated 9.11.2009. Shri Narwariya submits that for the fault of the Advocate, the litigant/petitioner cannot be made to suffer. He submits that the Court below has erred in passing the impugned order. On the contrary, the Court below should have granted further time to the petitioner to file written statement. In support of his contention, Shri Narwariya relied on 2008(2) MPLJ 478 (Zolba v. Keshao and others); 2006(1) MPLJ 11 (Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and others); (2005)4 SCC 480 (Kailash v. Nanhku and others) and 2003(3) MPLJ 560 (Mithumal and others v. Kavita and others).

4. Prayer is opposed by Shri V.S.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent. He supported the order passed by the Court below.

5. The point involved in this case is no more res integra. The apex Court considered the relevant provision, i.e., Order 8 rule 1, CPC. This provision deals with filing of written statement. This Court considered various Supreme Court judgments on the subject in Bismilla Bee v. Arjuman Aara, reported in 2014(3) JLJ 97=2014 (3) MPLJ 593. The relevant paras of this judgment reads as under :-

“11. The core issue is whether reasons assigned by the Court below in permitting the defendants No.1 to 5 to file written statement is in accordance with law ? In the opinion of this Court, this point is no more res integra. In Kailash (supra), apex Court opined as under :-

“(v) Though Order 8 rule 1 CPC is a part of procedural law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied . Extension of time may be allowed if it is needed to be given for circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.” (Emphasis supplied)

12. The apex Court in no uncertain terms made it clear that although Order 8 rule 1 CPC is part of procedural law and directory in nature, the permission to file written statement cannot be granted as a matter of routine and merely upon asking. The same view is taken by the apex Court in (2005)6 SCC 344 (Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India). The apex Court opined that the provision of Order 8 rule 1 providing for upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to