Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Charkhi Dadri, who is respondent No. 3 in the claim petition filed by Sanjay Kumar (respondent No. 1 herein) and which is pending before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.8.2005, passed by the Tribunal, whereby defence of the petitioner has been struck off under Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. on account of non-filing of written statement within a period of ninety days from the date of service of summons. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner Insurance Company was served with notice for appearance for 18.4.2005. On that day, one Shri R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, put appearance on behalf of the petitioner Company and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 1.6.2005, written statement of the petitioner was not ready, therefore, on request, the case was adjourned to 18.7.2005 for filing the same. On 18.7.2005 again adjournment was sought for filing the written statement and the case was accordingly adjourned to 10.8.2005. On that day, written statement on behalf of the petitioner Company was not filed and its defence was struck off on account of non-filing of the written statement within the period of ninety days from the date of service of the summons. Thereafter, after framing the issues, case was adjourned for evidence of the claimant. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, a claim petition was filed by respondent No. l Sanjay Kumar in the year 2002, but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition subject to limitation vide order dated 4.3.2005. In the said claim petition, one Shri Jitender Kumar, Advocate, was appearing for the petitioner Company. When the second petition was filed, Shri R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, put appearance on behalf of the petitioner Company, and when he intimated to the petitioner Company for his appearance in the case, the letters were issued by the Company to the said Advocate that Shri Jitender Kumar, Advocate who was earlier dealing with the case, will represent the Company. Therefore, because of the correspondence between the Advocates and the Company, written statement could not be filed within the stipulated period of ninety days. Therefore, because of the correspondence between the Advocates and the Company, written statement could not be filed within the stipulated period of ninety days. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case, the impugned order of striking the defence is not set aside and the Company is not permitted to file its written statement, a serious prejudice will be caused to it, as it is case of the petitioner that the claim petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Besides this, the petitioner has to make its submissions on various other issues on merits of the case. In these circumstances, counsel for the petitioner submits that in various decisions, the Hon ble Apex Court has held that the provision of Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. is directory and the Court can grant permission to file written statement even beyond the period of ninety days, if a case in this regard is made out. Counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner Company be granted one opportunity to file written statement subject to payment of costs. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner. 5. The Hon ble Apex Court in Kailash v. Nankhu , Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and Ors. , and Rani Kusum (Smt.) v. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) , has held that the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. are not mandatory, but are directory. Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. provides that the defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons, may file the written statement of his defence. However, the Proviso to this Rule further provides that if the defendant does not file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be permitted to file the same on such day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later then ninety days from the date of service of summons. While interpreting the aforesaid provisions, in Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsabs case (supra) the Hon ble Apex Court has held that the Court can permit the defendant to file the written statement even beyond 90 days. While interpreting the aforesaid provisions, in Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsabs case (supra) the Hon ble Apex Court has held that the Court can permit the defendant to file the written statement even beyond 90 days. This provision does not specifically take away the power of the Court to take the written statement on record if filed after 90 days. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position and the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the interest of justice, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file the written statement within a period of three weeks from today, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs, which shall be paid to the claimant-respondent No. 1. 7. Dasti on payment.