JUDGMENT 1. - Invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the defendant petitioners seek to quash the impugned order dated August 2, 2003 whereby the written statement filed by them on July 10. 2003 was ordered to be removed out of the record by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Ajmer Camp Beawar in civil suit No. 9/2003. Admittedly service of summons was effected on the petitioners on February 12, 2003 and they were bound to file written statement within thirty days from the date of service of summons as mandated by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. Proviso appended to Rule 1 however provides that where the written statement could not be filed within the said period of thirty days, the same may be permitted to be filed on such other day by the Court for reasons to be recorded in writing, but not later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. 2. Having heard the submissions canvassed on behalf of the defendant-petitioners and on scrutinising the material on record, I find that neither the learned counsel below nor the petitioners did care to properly follow the mandate of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. When service of summons was effected on the defendants petitioners on February 12, 2003, the case ought to have been listed in the court for filing the written statement on or before March 14, 2003 and thereafter further opportunity could have been granted to the defendants pursuant the proviso of Rule 1. But in the instant case the adjournments were freely granted and even after the expiry of the time limit provided by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, the written statement was made the part of the record. It was only when the attention of the trial court was invited to the said mandatory provision that the trial court passed the impugned (sic. order) to remove the written statement out of the record. 3. A close look at Order 8 Rule 9 CPC demonstrates that the court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days fat presenting the same. order) to remove the written statement out of the record. 3. A close look at Order 8 Rule 9 CPC demonstrates that the court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days fat presenting the same. This rule invest the Court with the widest possible discretion and enables it to accept a written statement or additional written statement within a period of thirty days from the date of passing the order. The right of the defendant to file written statement stands forfeited after expiry of the ninety days from the date of service of summons. It is however, the inherent right of the court either to accept or refuse the subsequent pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. 4. I do not find it a fit case where refusal to intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution would result in travesty of justice as the petitioners may move written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC and request the trial court to accept the written statement as subsequent pleadings. If such application is filed the learned trial court is expected to make endeavour to decide it after providing opportunity of hearing to the opposite party, as expeditiously as possible. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.Writ Petition Disposed of as Above. *******