JUDGMENT Prafuna C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.7.2004 (Annexure No.1 to the petition) passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 12 of 2004, whereby the learned trial Court has refused to extend the time for filing the written statement- 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here- the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which reads as under : "The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence : Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons." 4. As such, in view• of the above provisions of law, the maximum period under the law as it stands after amendment, is ninety days. Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. J. J. Merchant versus Shrinath Chaturvedi, AIR (2002) Supreme Court 2937 has held in para 15 as under : "Under this Rule also, there is a legislative mandate that written statement of defence is to be filed within 30 days. However, if there is a failure to file such written statement within stipulated time, the Court ca'1 at the most extend further period of 60 days and no more. Under the Act, the legislative intent is not to give 90 days of time but only maximum 45 days (read thirty days) for filing the version by the opposite party. Therefore, the aforesaid mandate is required to be strictly adhered to." In view of above provision of law and principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court the impugned order dated 17.7.2004 by which learned trial Court has refused to allow further time for filing the written statement cannot be said to be against the provisions of law. 5. From the record it appears that the defendant/petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 31st March, 2004. 5. From the record it appears that the defendant/petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 31st March, 2004. While the impugned request was made after ninety days on 17th July, 2004 (Le. delayed by only seventeen days). In the circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and continuance of interim stay order passed by this Court on 28th September, 2004 is further defeating the intention of the law. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court feels that the writ petition should be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly with the observation that if the defendant/petitioner, meanwhile by now has already filed the written statement before the trial Court and if he succeeds in explaining each days delay after the period of ninety days from the date of his appearance, the trial Court may consider to admit the written statement. The interim stay order dated 28th September, 2004 is hereby vacated. No order as to costs.