JUDGMENT : 1] Heard Mr. Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Taksande, learned counsel for the respondent. 2] Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3] By this writ petition, the respondent takes exception to the order dated 12.7.2006 passed by 3rd Joint Civil, Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 126/2003 by which the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file written statement beyond the period of 90days has been rejected. 4] The petitioner is original defendant in the above suit filed by the respondent. The petitioner was served with summons on 10.8.2004 and the suit was fixed on 25.8.2004. On 25.8.2004 Advocate P.D. Meghe filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner and sought time to file written statement. Somewhere in the first week of December, 2004 Advocate Meghe returned brief to the defendant and thereafter the defendant engaged another Advocate to defend his case. On 21.12.2004 the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to file written statement. Along with the application the petitioner had also filed written statement. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing reply. In the said reply it was stated that in the event the application was allowed costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) be imposed. The trial Court, while passing impugned order, rejected the application and consequently permission to file written statement was rejected. 5] Mr. Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that written statement could not be filed within 90 days since compromise talks were going on between the parties and in the first week of December, 2004 Advocate Meghe has returned the brief and soon thereafter written statement was prepared and was filed along with application dated 21.12.2004. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. R.N. Jadi and Brothers & Ors. Vs. Subhashchandra : AIR 2007 S.C. 2571 , Mr. Sambre submitted that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directory as has been held in the said judgment and having regard to the delay in filing the written statement and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case in which impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Mr. Sambre further submitted prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if she is not permitted to file written statement and she will be deprived of a valuable right to defend the claim made by the respondent in the suit. 6] Ms. Taksande, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 7] In M/s. R. N. Jadi and Brothers's case (supra) the Apex Court has held that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directory. Having regard to the ratio laid down in the said judgment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case in which the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the written statement already filed by the petitioner before the trial Court should be directed to be taken on record. 8] For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 12.7.2006 is quashed and set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) by the petitioner to the respondent. Since the petitioner has already deposited costs of Rs. 3000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) in this Court, liberty to the respondent to withdraw the costs. The trial Court shall take written statement already filed by the petitioner on record and proceed to dispose of Regular Civil Suit No. 126/2003 in accordance with law. Interim order dated 25.2.2008 stands vacated. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 15th July, 2008 at 11.00 a. m.Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.