Honble SHARMA, J. – Rule 1 of Order 8 CPC, as it stood before the amendment in 1976 gave the defendant a discretion to file a written statement unless the court required him to do so, and he could exercise that discretion at any time before the first hearing or upto some date fixed by the court. By the Amending Act of 1976 original rule 1 has been renumbered as sub-rule (1) and words ``may, and if so re- quired by the court have been omitted. The amendment has been effected to make the filing of written statement obligatory. The rule now provides that the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the court may permit, file a written statement. (2). The short question which arises for determination in this revision is as to whether sub- rule (1) of order 8 intended to be so operated as to punish the defaulting defendant for his omission or it has to be worked in manner so as to advance justice? (3). The question has emerged in the following circumstances – (i) Summons of the eviction suit instituted by non- petitioner land-lord Chandra Prakash, was served upon the petitioner tenant on August 23, 1995, and despite many opportunities granted to him, he did not file the written statement. Thereafter the non-petitioner land lord moved an application on April 6, 1996 for closing the written statement of the petitioner tenant. (ii) The trial court vide order dated July 24, 1996 allowed the application of the land lord and closed the written statement of the petitioner tenant. (iii) Against the said order, present action for filing the revision has been resorted to. (4). Order impugned, was supported by the learned counsel for the land lord placing reliance on Ganpat Chand vs. Jeth Mal (1), in which this court observed that if after several opportunities the defendant did not file written statement, the trial court rightly proceeded under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. (5). I am of the view that it would be a very unsatisfactory method of the trial of the suit if the defendant is allowed to argue his defence but is not allowed to file a written statement or even if he is allowed to point out the defects in the plaintiffs case, he is not allowed to plead his own case. Neither Order 8 Rule 10 CPC nor section 151 CPC refers to the necessity of any good cause being shown by the defendant before he is allowed to file the written statement late. The court can ex- tend the time under section 148 CPC. Where the defendant does not file his written statement within the time allowed the court in its discretion can grant further adjournment for filing the written statement. (6). Allahabad High Court in Surendra Kumar vs. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal (2), has observed that even if the conduct of the defendant had been reprehensible, malicious or callously negligent and inspite of several adjournment defendant did not file the written statement and might have been deliberately avoiding to file the same, still an opportunity to the defendant ought to be granted to file the written statement and adjournment sought by him could not be refused merely on the ground that he has availed of several adjournments earlier. However, looking to the conduct of defendant heavy costs had been imposed on him. (7). In Ramesh Chand and Anr. vs. P.N.B. & Ors. (3), the Honble Apex Court also observed as:– ``We feel that, although the conduct of the appellants has certainly been far from satisfactory and it does not appear that they have tried to delay the matters, one final opportunity could be given to them for filing the written statement on certain conditions. (8). Upshot of the above discussion is that sub-rule (1) of Order 8 CPC has to be worked in a manner so as to advance justice. It is not intended to be so operated as to punish the defaulting defendant for the omission. Therefore the court below has committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order and if the order is allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice. (9). Consequently, I allow this revision and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner shall be allowed to file the written statement only after payment of costs, which I quantify Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand).