MOHIT S. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20. 2. 2008 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition in which the appellants had challenged the order dated 5. 12. 2006 of the learned Additional senior Civil Judge, Junagadh below application Exh. 63 in Special Civil Suit no. 93 of 2004. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 herein (original plaintiff) had filed the above suit in the year 2004 alleging that defendant No. 1 in the suit (respondent No. 2 herein) had executed a Banakhat dated 17. 8. 2002 for selling the agricultural lands in question for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- and that the plaintiff had paid a total sum of rs. 2,45,000/- towards the same by paying Rs. 1,80,000/- in cash and rs. 25,000/- by a cheque dated 12. 8. 2002. The plaintiff contended that in breach of the terms of the said banakhat, defendant No. 1 executed a registered sale deed dated 18. 12. 2003 selling the property in question to defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for a declaration that the aforesaid registered sale deed was void ab initio, sham and ineffective and also for specific performance of the aforesaid Banakhat dated 17. 8. 2002 for which the plaintiff was ready to pay rs. 25,000/- being the balance amount of consideration. The plaintiffs also prayed for permanent and temporary injunction against the defendants from transferring the property. The adinterim injunction as prayed for was granted by the trial Court. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 2 and 3 thereafter filed application Exh. 63 praying that the written statement being filed by all the three defendants may be taken on record. It was indicated in the said application that defendant No. 2 is an old Parda nashin lady and that she could not give instructions to the learned Advocate for the defendants in time. It was also stated in the said application filed in September 2006 that there were heavy rains and therefore also, defendant No. 1 could not give instructions to the learned advocate for the defendants in time. It was also stated in the said application filed in September 2006 that there were heavy rains and therefore also, defendant No. 1 could not give instructions to the learned advocate for the defendants in time. The plaintiffs objected to the said application on the ground that the written statement was required under the law to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons and at the most the Court could grant extension for a period of 90 days but not for any longer period. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the trial Court rejected application Exh. 63 by the order dated 5. 12. 2006 which came to be challenged in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) MR Hasit Joshi, learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in R. N. Jadi and brothers and others Vs. Subhashchandra (2007)6 SCC 420 , wherein the Court held the time limit to be almost mandatory but thereafter, in two cases, the Apex Court has struck a different note. Aditya Hotels (P)Limited Vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores limited and others, (2007) 14 SCC 431 , the Apex Court followed the decision in Kailash Vs. Nankhu and others, (2005) 4 SCC 480 , holding that the Court has the power to grant extension for filing the written statement in the interest of justice i. e. on the ground that grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended- It is further submitted that again the same view has been taken in zolba Vs. Keshao and others, (2008)11 SCC 769 . In the said decision also, the Apex Court held that the proviso to order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory in nature and that it would be open to the court to permit the defendants to file the written statement, if exceptional circumstances have been made out. Keshao and others, (2008)11 SCC 769 . In the said decision also, the Apex Court held that the proviso to order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory in nature and that it would be open to the court to permit the defendants to file the written statement, if exceptional circumstances have been made out. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr Sanjay A mehta, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff) has opposed the appeal and submitted that the defendants did not make out any exceptional case for granting extension of time to file the written statement, assuming that the trial Court has power to grant extension beyond 30 + 90 days. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the parties, we find that though in R. N. Jadi and Brothers and others Vs. Subhashchandra (supra), the Apex Court had construed the proviso to Rule 1 Order 8 CPC very strictly and held the same to be almost mandatory in nature, in two subsequent decisions i. e. in Aditya Hotels (P)Limited Vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores limited and others (supra) and in zolba Vs. Keshao and others (supra), the Apex Court has held that the proviso to Rule 1 Order 8 CPC is not mandatory in nature. In Zolba Vs. Keshao and others (supra), the Apex court made the following observations after quoting the principles laid down in Salem Advocates Bar Association vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 :- "it would be open to the Court to permit the appellant to file his written statement if exceptional circumstances have been made out. It cannot also be forgotten that in an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Therefore, unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC or any procedural enactment should not be construed in a manner, which would leave the Court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. " ( 7 ) IN the facts of the present case, we find that the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 18. 12. 2003 executed by defendant No. l in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 is void ab initio, sham and ineffective. " ( 7 ) IN the facts of the present case, we find that the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 18. 12. 2003 executed by defendant No. l in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 is void ab initio, sham and ineffective. If the written statement filed by the defendants is not taken on record, the defendants, particularly, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who purchased the suit property under the above registered sale deed may Jose the entire property being agricultural land in visavadar Taluka of Junagadh District and the plaintiff who is residing in the society called Sunrise Park, Drive in road, Ahmedabad may succeed in getting the suit decreed. ( 8 ) THE ground given by the defendants being Exh. 63 was that defendant No. 1 is an old Parda nashin lady and she could not give instructions to the learned Advocate for the defendants in time on account of heavy rains. It is true that if the said statement made in application Exh. 63 is taken by the defendants, it may not amount to sufficient explanation for the delay of almost two years in filing the written statement. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the plaintiff is the uncle of defendant no. 2 and is brother in law of defendant no. 3 and both defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are residing in Village Mandavat in visavadar Taluka of Junagadh District. Defendant No. 2 is an agriculturist. On the other hand, the plaintiff is residing in Ahmedabad and appears to be more literate than the defendants. We do not wish to make any further observations about the peculiar facts of the case, lest they should influence the trial Court on the merits of the controversy between the parties. The delay in filing of the written statement has not caused any prejudice to the plaintiff who is already protected by an ad-interim injunction granted by the trial Court restraining defendant Nos. 2 and 3 from transferring the suit property to any third party. Hence, taking an overall view of the matter, in the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Zolba vs. Keshao and others (supra) would apply. 2 and 3 from transferring the suit property to any third party. Hence, taking an overall view of the matter, in the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Zolba vs. Keshao and others (supra) would apply. As observed in the said decision, in an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation and the court should not feel helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. ( 9 ) IN the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid principle laid down in Zolba vs. Keshao and others (supra), we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. We allow special Civil Application No. 6924 of 2007 and set aside the order dated 5. 12. 2006 passed by the learned additional Senior Civil Judge, junagadh below application Exh. 63 in special Civil Suit No. 93 of 2004. We allow the said application Exh. 63 and direct the Trial Court to take on record the written statement filed by the defendants in the suit, subject to the condition that the defendants shall pay the plaintiff the costs of application at exh. 63 quantified at Rs. 5,000/- in one set. The amount shall be deposited in the trial Court by 30th October 2009 and the plaintiff shall be at liberty to withdraw the same. ( 10 ) SINCE the appeal is allowed, civil application for stay does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. ( 11 ) RECORD and proceedings be sent down to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal is allowed.