Order Challenging in this writ application is the order dated 10.3.2005 passed by the Munsif, Bokaro in Title Suit No. 56 of 2003., whereby the application filed by the petitioners for recalling the earlier order dated 27.5.2004 under which the petitioners/defendants, were debarred from filing their Written Statements, was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. It appears that a Title Suit bearing Title Suit No. 56 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents against as many as 20 defendants, including the present petitioners. Some of the defendants appeared in the suit on 26.11.2004 and the remaining on 17.2.2004. However, no Written Statements were filed on their behalf, even after the lapse of 90 days. Rather, the Written Statements on their behalf were filed after more than five months from the date of their appearance. 4. It appears that when the Written Statement was not forthcoming, in spite of the repeated directions given by the court, the learned Munsif by his order dated 27.5.2004, had debarred the defendants from filing the Written Statements and had declared that he would proceed in accordance with the provisions contained under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The petitioners, thereafter filed an application for recalling of the aforesaid order dated 27.5.2004 and for acceptance of their Written Statements. However, by the impugned order, the prayer was rejected. 6. It also appears that vide order dated 23.6.2005, passed in this writ, the further proceedings in the suit before the court below was stayed. As a result, no progress has been made in the Title Suit, pending before the court below ever since after 23.6.2004. 7. learned counsel for the petitioners explains that even though there was substantive delay on the part of the defendants to file the Written Statements, but the defendants cannot be entirely put to fault for such delay, in view of the fact that the documents referred to by the plaintiff and relied upon by him, was not filed alongwith the plaint and the defendants/ petitioners could not possibly obtain copies of such documents promptly in order to assess the merits of the e10cumenls and to submit their replies to the same. 8. 8. From the order dated 27.5.2004, it appears that the trial court has not even considered the reasons offered by the petitioners for the delay in filing the Written Statements. 9. From perusal of the impugned order dated 10.3.2005, it appears that learned trial court had proceeded to strictly follow the provisions under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not to exercise any discretion to extend the period for allowing the defendants to file their Written Statements or even to accept the Written Statements filed by them by the date of the impugned order. 10. As has been explained in several judgments of this Court and also of the Supreme Court, no doubt, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, do stipulate a specific time period within which, Written Statements are to be filed by the defendants. However, the Rule is not inflexible and in appropriate cases and for reasons explained satisfactorily, the trial court may exercise its discretion to extend the period and accept the Written Statements of the defendants, albeit, by imposition of costs, in order to ensure justice. 11. In the instant case, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on account of the interim order of stay passed by this Court, no further progress in the proceeding before the court below having been made, even the issues has not been framed and as such, the plaintiffs/defendants would not suffer any serious prejudice, if Written Statements filed by the petitioners/defendants are accepted. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the principal defendant having died, his widow and other legal representatives have been impleaded by way of substitution and they would suffer serious prejudice, if the Written Statements filed on behalf of the defendants, are not accepted on record. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstance and for the ends of justice, the impugned order dated 10.3.2005 is hereby set aside. The trial court shall accept the Written Statements filed on behalf of the petitioners/defendants. This order shall, however, be subject to the condition that the petitioners/defendants shall pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- within two weeks from the date of this order. 14. The interim order passed in this case is vacated.