Pranab Kumar Deb ( 1 ) THIS revisional application has been preferred against the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore in mat. Suit No. 4 of 2004 on 24th June, 2003. ( 2 ) HEARD the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party. ( 3 ) IN moving the application, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Court allowed the opposite party to file written statement after expiry of the statutory period without assigning any reason. Referring to Kailash v. Nankhu and Ors. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 480 , it is submitted that extension of time beyond the limits laid down in order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and the proviso thereof, as amended, could only be made by way of exception and that too, by assigning reasons. There must be an order in writing by the learned Court as to its satisfaction, however brief it may be. The learned Court concerned is required to spell out that departure from the time schedule prescribed in order 8 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and the proviso thereof, as amended, is being allowed because of the circumstances which are exceptional in nature and occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and as such extension is required in the interest of justice. Straightway extension of time without assigning the reasons cannot be permissible. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that since the written statement has already been filed before the learned Court below, the question as to its acceptance cannot be raised in a revisional application. ( 5 ) THERE is no denying the fact that a prayer for extension of time cannot be granted as a matter of routine and simply because of the fact that someone has asked for it. Extension of time may be allowed by way of exception, as highlighted in the case of Kailash v. Nankhu and Ors. (supra ). In the event of extension of time being allowed, the Court is required to record its reasons. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, direction is given to the learned Additional District judge, 3rd Court, Alipore trying the Mat. Extension of time may be allowed by way of exception, as highlighted in the case of Kailash v. Nankhu and Ors. (supra ). In the event of extension of time being allowed, the Court is required to record its reasons. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, direction is given to the learned Additional District judge, 3rd Court, Alipore trying the Mat. Suit No. 4 of 2004 to pass a reasoned order regarding the prayer for acceptance of the written statement and in doing so he is to bear in mind the principles laid down in the case of kailash v. Nankhu (supra ). It is hereby clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the learned Judge is to take his own decision as to whether the written statement is to be accepted or not bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court. ( 7 ) THE revisional application thus stands disposed of. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order be given to both parties as early as possible.