( 1 ) PLAINTIFF has filed the present petition questioning the order passed by the learned Trialjudge rejecting his application i. A. No. 2. 1. A. No. 2 is filed by the plaintiff to reject the Written Statement filed by defendants No. 1 to 3 in the said suit. Defendants 1 to 4 are respondents 1 to 4. ( 2 ) THE matter arises in the following manner : during the course of this order, parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. Plaintiff-Petitioner has filed a suit against the defendants-respondents for recovery of rs. l,84,92,768/- (Rupees one crore eighty-four lakhs ninety two thousand and seven hundered sixty eight) towards the work done by him for the purpose of construction of a canal. The suit was filed on 2-12-2003. The suit summons were issued and served on the 3rd defendant on 25-2-2004. On 3-3- 2004, the 3rd defendant entered appearance. In so far as the other defendants are concerned, i. e. , defendants 1, 2 and 4 since the suit summons were not as yet served, the Court adjourned the matter awaiting the summons. The suit was adjourned to 3-8-2004. The 3rd defendant filed the written statement on that day. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 28-8-2004. The plaintiff filed an application I. A. No. 2, which has given rise to the present proceedings, praying for rejection of the written statement on the ground that the same is filed beyond the statutory period as contemplated under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his contention, the plaintiff- petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in case of A. Sathyapal v. Smt. Yasmin Banu ansari reported in ILR (2004) Kar 1399 : ( AIR 2004 Kar 246 ). The learned trial Judge has rejected the said application on two grounds. One is, when the written statement has already been accepted by the court, the question of reviewing the same is not warranted. The second ground is that the defendants are Government agencies, who would require some time to collect the required information and to file the written statement. In the circumstances he was of the opinion that there are no exceptional reasons for allowing the application filed by the plaintiff for rejection of the written statement. The second ground is that the defendants are Government agencies, who would require some time to collect the required information and to file the written statement. In the circumstances he was of the opinion that there are no exceptional reasons for allowing the application filed by the plaintiff for rejection of the written statement. It is to be noticed that the delay in filing the written statement from the date of service of summons is five months. ( 3 ) MR. G. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff petitioner would strenuously contend that as on the date, when the application was disposed. of hte law, as stated in Satya Pal's case : ( AIR 2004 kar 246 ) held the field. Consequently, the learned Trial Judge could not have dismissed the said application. He would further submit that the defendant had not filed any application seeking for extension of time or for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. Consequently, the question of the Courts exercising the suo motor power by condoning the delay is not warranted and not contemplated under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On these grounds, he would submit that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge would require interference. He would rely on the latest Judgment of this Court in case of A. Satyapal v. Smt. Yasmin Banu Ansari reported in ILR 2004 Kar 1399 : ( AIR 2004 kar 246 ). He would submit that without there being an application, the Court could not have entertained the written statement. He would also submit that there are no exceptional circumstances warranting the acceptance of the written statement. ( 4 ) MR. Ashwin Kumar, learned counsel for Mr. Satyanarayana, for respondents 1 to 3 would contend that from the date of the appearance i. e. , on 3-3-2004, the matter was being adjourned for filing of the written statement and consequently, the written statement was filed on 3-8-2004. He would submit that the Trial Court has accepted the written statement, which would necessarily mean that the delay, if any is deemed to have been condoned. He would also further submit that the filing of an application is not a mandatory requirement for acceptance of the written statement after the expiry of 9o days. He would submit that the Trial Court has accepted the written statement, which would necessarily mean that the delay, if any is deemed to have been condoned. He would also further submit that the filing of an application is not a mandatory requirement for acceptance of the written statement after the expiry of 9o days. In this Court, he also filed the statement of objections to the writ petition explaining as to why, the writ petition should not be entertained; in addition reasons are given for not filing the written statement in the Trial Court in time. The Statement of objections is verified by the Office secretary who has sworn to the said affidavit on behalf of defendants 1 to 3. He would also rely on the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kailash v. Nanku reported in 2005 air SCW 2346 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2441 ) to support his contention. ( 5 ) THE questions, which would fall for consideration in these proceedings are, whether in the absence of any application, the Courts have got suo motu power to extend the time and whether an application is required to be filed for acceptance of the written statement explaining the delay. ( 6 ) THE law, as has been stated by the apex Court would clearly indiate that the time schedule for filing of the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 is no doubt is to expedite the trial and not to scuttle the hearing of the suit. After considering the scope of Order 8 Rulel, the Apex Court has ruled that the power of the Court to extend the time beyond the period of 90 days as stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil procedure is not at all taken away. In fact, the Apex Court has ruled that the said Rule and the provision would fall in the domain of procedural law, and it is directory and not mandatory. Keeping these principles in mind, one will have to examine whether an application is required for seeking permission of the Court to file a written statement or even in the absence of such an application, the Court has suo motu power to receive the same. Apparently, the latter portion of the decision would clearly indicate that the extension of time could be allowed. Apparently, the latter portion of the decision would clearly indicate that the extension of time could be allowed. It is useful to extract the observations made by the Apex Court in the said decision, which reads as follows :"extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the 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 fact and circumstances of a given case. "the said observation can be classified into three parts namely (1) extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given in the circumstances which are exceptional. (2) such circumstances which are occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant (3) grave Injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. It is not that each of these criteria will have to be satisfied before the time is extended for filing of the written statement. Even, if any one of them like grave injustice would be occasioned, if the defendant has not filed the written statement, time is required to be extended and the other would be certain circumstanes, which are beyond the control ef the defendant, which would virtually prevent him from putting forth his defence like absence of material records, or the petitioner or the defendant being absent for considerable period of time in which case, he Is unable to give instructions to the Counsel to prepare a written statement or is not keeping good health for considerable period of time. The exceptional circumstanes would vary from one case to another and nothing positively can be stated what are those exceptfonal circumstances. In the facts and circumstances of each case, exceptional circumstances are to be viewed. Ultimately, one will have to be pragmatic and take the over all situation into consideration while extending time to file the written statement. There cannot be a straitjacket fromula as to what are the exceptional circumstances. In the facts and circumstances of each case, exceptional circumstances are to be viewed. Ultimately, one will have to be pragmatic and take the over all situation into consideration while extending time to file the written statement. There cannot be a straitjacket fromula as to what are the exceptional circumstances. "a grave injustice will be occasioned if the time is not extended" can be dealt where, the suit claim be it in the nature of recovery of money, the suit for partition of immovable property, declaration of title in respect of immovable property or in a suit for specific performance, where the rights of the parties in an immovable property are involved, the right to defend cannot be taken away on the basis of technicalities. That would be the scope of the grave injustice as stated by the Apex court. ( 7 ) THE next contention of Mr. Subba Rao whether the Courts have suo motu power to extend the time to file a written statement is concerned, it is to be noticed that a reading of the Judgment of the Apex Court would certainly give an indication that by imposition of a cost, and calling for the affidavit of a defaulted party, the document in support of the grounds pleaded for extension of time may be demanded depending on the facts and circumstanes of the case. The question is whether the said exercise could be done in the Trial Court or when the matter is pending in a Superior Court. In the decision of the Apex Court, it was a case of an election petition, where the High Court was satisfied that the reasons assigned by the defendant appellant in that case for extension of time was good and valid but however extension of time was denied on the ground that it had no power to do so. In the case on hand, it is to be noticed that an explanation is offered in the statement of objections verified by an affidavit explaining the delay as to why and in what circumstances, the written statement could not be filed within 90 days from the date of service. A reading of the statement of objections filed would clearly disclose that the suit is filed for recovery of mo ney towards the work done by the plaintiff for construction of a canal. A reading of the statement of objections filed would clearly disclose that the suit is filed for recovery of mo ney towards the work done by the plaintiff for construction of a canal. It appears, the respondent, who is a Governmental agency took over the assets and liabilities of the Government to take up the works of Malaprabha Right Bank canal. Since the respondents have taken over the assets and the liabilities of the government and the detailed project reports and the materials relating to the construction work, the tender called for, were in the custody of the Government agency, they would say that they were unable to get the required material for preparation of the written statement and they could not get the said materials in time. In view of the nonavailability of the materials, the written statement could not be flled. Apparently, this would fall under the 2nd and 3rd exception, that is; "the circumstances which is beyond the control of the defendant" and "grave injustice should be occasioned if the time is not extended". In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Trial judge was right in not entertaining the application of the plaintiff. Indeed an explanation is required to be offered by defendants as to why the written statement was not filed in time. The said explanation can be offered in the Trial Court and also in the superior Court. ( 8 ) ANOTHER reason why this petition cannot be entertained is because the delay is not enormous. It is only about five months. It is also brought to my notice that the suit is still at the infant stage in as much as the evidence of the parties has not commenced. Consequently, if the written statement is accepted, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff. In fact, the observations made by the Apex Court in the said decision would apply in all force to the contentions urged by the defendants respondents in this case. Apparently, the application for extension or seeking permission was not filed before the trial Court. As has been stated earlier, explanation has been offered in this Court. In fact, the observations made by the Apex Court in the said decision would apply in all force to the contentions urged by the defendants respondents in this case. Apparently, the application for extension or seeking permission was not filed before the trial Court. As has been stated earlier, explanation has been offered in this Court. Without going into the niceties of the question whether the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be treated as continuation of the suit on an interlocutary application, the explanation offered can be looked into by this Court to meet the ends of justice, instead of remitting the matter to the Trial Court to do the entire exercise all over again. Consequently, i am of the considered view that this is not a fit case where interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. --- *** --- .