JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Plaintiff/respondents instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed in the trial Court against the defendant/petitioners on 03.07.2003, wherein the defendants appeared on 19.07.2003. The next date in the case was 06.09.2003, but due to non-appearance of the plaintiffs, the suit was dismissed in default, which was ultimately restored on 05.02.2005, and thereafter the defendants filed a written-statement on 19.02.2005. The trial Court vide its impugned order dated 19.03.2005 did not take the written-statements on the record on the ground that as per the Order 8 Rule 1, C.P.C. the written-statement was not filed within a period of 30-days from the date of appearance i.e. 19.07.2003. 2. The said order is under challenged in the present writ petition filed by the defendants. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that although the defendants appeared before the learned trial Court on 19.07.2003, but before expiry of statutory period available to the defendants for filing the written-statements, the suit itself was dismissed in default on 06.09.2003 and the same was restored on 05.02.2005 only. He contended that from the date of restoration of the suit the defendants filed written-statements within a period of 30-days itself i.e. 19.02.2005, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to exclude the written-statement of the defendants from the record, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the written-statement filed by them be taken on the record. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the reasons assigned by the trial court for exclusion of the written-statements to be taken on the record, and after considering the same, I find that the trial Court committed serious illegality in passing the impugned order and excluding the written-statements of the defendants from the record, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The suit was dismissed in default on 06.09.2003 and remained as such till it was restored on 05.02.2005, and thereafter within a period of 30-days itself, the written-statement was filed on 19.02.2005, which should have been taken on the record by the trial Court. Even otherwise the provisions relating to filing of the written-statements are directory in nature. The suit was dismissed in default on 06.09.2003 and remained as such till it was restored on 05.02.2005, and thereafter within a period of 30-days itself, the written-statement was filed on 19.02.2005, which should have been taken on the record by the trial Court. Even otherwise the provisions relating to filing of the written-statements are directory in nature. The filing of the written-statement is a valuable right of the defendants, which should not be denied normally. 6. In view of above discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.03.2005 passed by the trial court is set aside. The written-statement filed by the defendants is ordered to be taken on the record. 7. Cost is made easy.Writ petition allowed. *******