GAVAI B.R., J.:- Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Shri H.V. Patil, holding for Shri D.Y. Nandedkar, learned Counsel, waives notice for the respondent. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17th August, 2005, vide which the learned trial Court refused the application of the present petitioner for treating the say of temporary injunction application as “Written Statement” & for setting aside the “No W.S.” order and the order dated 19th October, 2005, vide which the present applicant had prayed for setting aside the order dated 17th August, 2005. 4. The present respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the present petitioner/defendant from evicting him from the tenanted premises without following due process of law. 5. In the said proceedings, the petitioner received summons on 23rd September 2004. Thereafter, though the matter adjourned on various dates, no written statement came to be filed and ultimately vide order dated 5th March, 2005 an order of “No W.S.” came to be passed. Thereafter, an application for setting aside the “No W.S.” order came to be filed and same came to be rejected on 17th August 2005. Another application for setting aside the said order has been filed on 29th August 2005 which also came to be rejected on 19th October, 2005. Hence, this petition. 6. Shri M.V. Ghatge, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was throughout diligent. It is submitted that the petitioner had appeared in the proceedings, which were filed by the respondent for temporary injunction. The same was also carried up to this Court. It is further submitted that application was also filed by the respondent for restoration of possession alleging that he was forcefully dispossessed. He submits that the said proceedings were also defended by the petitioner. It is thus clear that the petitioner was throughout diligent and had even taken the proceedings to this Court. It is submitted that only due to oversight and/ or due to the negligence on the part of the learned Counsel appearing therein, the written statement could not be filed within the stipulated time. 7. Shri H.V. Patil learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, vehemently opposed the application. He submits that the petitioner was negligent throughout. It is submitted that only due to oversight and/ or due to the negligence on the part of the learned Counsel appearing therein, the written statement could not be filed within the stipulated time. 7. Shri H.V. Patil learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, vehemently opposed the application. He submits that the petitioner was negligent throughout. It is submitted that there is a delay not only in filing the application for setting aside the “No W.S.” order but the present petition is also filed at much belated stage. 8. No doubt that the defendant is entitled to file written statement within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him and if 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. However the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have been held to be directory in nature. It can be seen that though there is inordinate delay in filing the application for setting aside the “No W.S.” order, the petitioner in other parallel proceedings was throughout diligent. 9. It appears that the petitioner has filed say to the temporary injunction application within stipulated time. For some reason, it appears that the application for setting aside “No W.S.” order was not filed within a reasonable time. 10. It is further to be seen that the petitioner has already filed an application for treating his reply to the temporary injunction application as written statement. I am of the view that in the interest of justice, the petitioner needs to be permitted to agitate his grievance on it's own merits and insofar as the prejudice caused to the respondent, same can be compensated by saddling costs on the petitioner. 11. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The “No W.S.” order dated 5th March, 2005 is quashed and set aside. 12. The learned trial Court is directed to treat the say filed by the petitioner to the temporary injunction application as written statement. It is further made clear that the petition is allowed subject to payment of costs, which are quantified at Rs.3,000/-(Rs. Three Thousand only). The “No W.S.” order dated 5th March, 2005 is quashed and set aside. 12. The learned trial Court is directed to treat the say filed by the petitioner to the temporary injunction application as written statement. It is further made clear that the petition is allowed subject to payment of costs, which are quantified at Rs.3,000/-(Rs. Three Thousand only). The said costs shall be deposited within a period of six (6) weeks from today, in the trial Court. 13. The deposit of costs is a condition precedent for allowing the say of the petitioner to be treated as written statement. On depositing of costs, the respondent would be at liberty to withdraw the same. It is further made clear that after petitioner’s written statement is taken on record, if the plaintiff/present respondent desires to give any additional evidence, he would be at liberty to give the same. Petition allowed.