C. K. BUCH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order under challenge passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed the application Exh. 32 and permitted the respondent-original defendant-Gujarat State financial Corporation to file written statement objecting to the application preferred under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of code of Civil Procedure. ( 3 ) MR. Gandhi has placed reliance on the proceedings drawn wherein, it is recorded that the Corporation had prayed for adjournment on various grounds, but had never mentioned that his mother is seriously ill and hospitalized and therefore, he may be given some time. For the first time, this fact has been disclosed by the defendant through his lawyer at the time of filing application Exh. 32 which appears to be an afterthought. So, keeping in mind the decision of this Court in the case of videocon Ltd. v. Navbharat Ltd. , reported in 2005 [4] GLR 3553, the learned lower court ought to have rejected the application. ( 4 ) HAVING gone through the order under challenge, more particularly, the discussion made by the learned trial Judge in para-8 of the order under challenge, I am satisfied that the learned trial Judge has rightly exercised discretion keeping in mind the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. R. N. Jadi and Brothers and ors. v. Subhashchandra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2571 . ( 5 ) IN a given case, it is very likely that financial institution like the respondent may miss the bus in filing written statement on account of sheer negligence on the part of the officers working in the organization or on the part of the lawyer and apparently such negligence may look dereliction in discharging duty. But it is very likely that act or omission of either officer or lawyer may be deliberate. So, if the Court decides, without commenting on such contingency or possibility, it can permit a party to file written statement at a later stage. But it is very likely that act or omission of either officer or lawyer may be deliberate. So, if the Court decides, without commenting on such contingency or possibility, it can permit a party to file written statement at a later stage. Order of granting such permission cannot be said to be violative of any mandatory provision and such order does not require to be interfered with in exercise of Constitutional power of superintendence vested with the Court. ( 6 ) LEARNED trial Judge has discussed the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. There is no element of error of law and no injustice is likely to be caused to the plaintiff, especially when the Court has decided not to draw decree in absence of written statement. ( 7 ) I have also considered the fact that written statement was late by about 80 days. Delay is not of several months, i. e exceeding the actual period of 90 days carved out in the Scheme of Civil Procedure code. The Court is satisfied with the reasons assigned by the learned lawyer for the defendant while praying that the application Exh. 32 may be granted and the defendant may be permitted to file written statement. ( 8 ) MR. Gandhi submitted that the observation made by the Apex Court in para 21 of the judgment in the case of R. N. Jadi brothers [supra] would help the petitioner. The said para-21 reads as under:- "it is notorious that suits were being dragged on by defendants in suits by not filing their written statements within a reasonable time. We are not unaware of cases where written statements were not filed even within two or three years of the filing of the suits. The control expected to be exercised by Courts, by the scheme of the Code, was not being exercised leading to slackness in the matter of filing pleadings in defence. It was in that context that the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil procedure were amended, the laudable object being to avoid delay in the disposal of suits. The Amended Order VIII, Rule I fixes a time limit for the filing of written statements. It was in that context that the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil procedure were amended, the laudable object being to avoid delay in the disposal of suits. The Amended Order VIII, Rule I fixes a time limit for the filing of written statements. But, Parliament did not stop wit amending Order VIII, Rule 1 alone i. e introducing a time limit for filing written statements and restricting the power of the court to grant extension of time for filing written statements as 90 days from the date of service of summons. The power for extension of time granted to the Court under section 148 of the Code was curtailed by introducing an outer time limit of 30 days from the date originally fixed or granted. Thus, the legislative intent to limit or curtail the power of the Court to extend the time for filing a written statement is obvious from a conjoint reading of these provisions. " But the above observation, obviously has to be read in reference to the discussion made by the Court in paras 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment. In the said case, the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court as the learned trial Judge had granted time to file written statement up to 6th June, 2004. There was no dispute that written statement was filed on that given date. The time granted was falling outside the limit of 90 days. The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved had approached the High Court and the decision of the High Court ultimately was challenged before the Supreme Court. The discussion of number of judgments in this regard, ultimately lay down a law that there is still element of discretion which can be exercised reasonably by the Court keeping in mind the totality of facts and circumstances emerging from the case. So, the embargo of 90 days carved out in particular Rule and scheme of Sec. 148 of the Statute Book only regulates the system so that indiscriminate time to file written statement may not be granted by the Court or a party may not opt to file written statement at any stage of the suit as per wish or strategy and even at the appellate stage. ( 9 ) FOR short, I do not find any merit in the petitions and therefore, both the petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.