Judgment :- Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties. 2. By this Writ Petition the original plaintiff challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Wardha whereby he allowed the application of the defendant to place the Written Statement on record. 3. The facts shorn of details are as follows: Petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,6,61,236/. Defendant-respondent is a Municipal Council. Upon service of the summons respondent/Municipal Council appeared before the Court on 06.06.2006. Applications were moved by the respondents-defendants Municipal Council for grant of time to file Written Statement on three occasions. Thereafter respondent defendants moved an application that the copies of the documents have not been supplied. Such application was once again moved and the said application was rejected by the learned Judge and suit was directed to proceed without Written Statement. Later on 26.02.2008 the defendant filed an application for permission to file Written Statement. The said application was heard by the learned Judge and was allowed and the petitioner-plaintiff feels aggrieved by that order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contends that the defendants had failed to file Written Statement for a period of more than a year and that too for no reason. Defendants had appeared in the suit on 06.06.2006 and had sought time thrice for filing the written statement on the ground that record and documents were not available. For the first time defendants raised an objection by application dated 19.07.2006 that the documents required to be supplied with the summons and copy of plaint are not supplied. Defendants contended that without that it cannot file Written Statement. Time was granted by the Court. On the next date i.e. on 06.10.2006 again the defendants raised said contention that copies of the documents are not supplied and Written Statement cannot be filed. Application came to be rejected. Thereafter even the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded by the Court. Defendants filed application for permission to file Written Statement. In this application defendants contended that since the plaintiff did not supply the documents defendants obtained certified copies in which time was lost and therefore Written Statement could not be filed early. 6. Application came to be rejected. Thereafter even the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded by the Court. Defendants filed application for permission to file Written Statement. In this application defendants contended that since the plaintiff did not supply the documents defendants obtained certified copies in which time was lost and therefore Written Statement could not be filed early. 6. Even though the defendants complained after filing three applications seeking adjournment to file Written Statement that documents are not supplied the defendants did not insist on Court to direct the plaintiff to supply documents nor the Court of its own directed the plaintiffs to supply such documents. Defendants initially were merely contending that it has not laid its hands on the documents and cannot file a Written Statement. They do not say which are those documents and what is their relevance and importance. Defendants were merely saying that it is obtaining certified copies and would file Written Statement. One wonders which could be those documents of which certified copies could be obtained from the Court. In fact for filing a Written Statement it can be only those documents which are related to the contract between the parties which are relevant. The contention that it obtained certified copies and then file Written Statement cannot be accepted and does not appear to be correct since the trial of the suit itself had not begun. The civil Court issues certified copies of only proved documents. There was no proved document on record at that time and it is therefore difficult to accept defendants contention that it had to obtain certified copies from the civil Court and that it obtained so. Defendant was merely putting an excuse for not filing Written Statement. Even after defendants last application dated 06.10.2006 was rejected the defendant did not ask the Court to direct the plaintiff to supply the documents and that the time of 90 days expired. In fact all documents with regard to the contract ought to be in possession of the defendants also. If the defendants could file Written Statement without those documents later there is no reason why it could not filed it early. The decision cited in Aldas Valezia Tereza Mergulhao and Another Vs. Joaquim Jeronimo De Almeida and Others 2006(3) Maharashtra Law Journal 391 has no bearing to the case at hand. If the defendants could file Written Statement without those documents later there is no reason why it could not filed it early. The decision cited in Aldas Valezia Tereza Mergulhao and Another Vs. Joaquim Jeronimo De Almeida and Others 2006(3) Maharashtra Law Journal 391 has no bearing to the case at hand. In that case there was a direction of the Court to supply the documents requested by the defendant. In this case the defendants did not make a request nor did the Court pass any order. In another decision reported in Vivek s/o Late R. B. Mokadam Vs. Smt. Kiran w/o S. K. Nashine 2007(6) Maharashtra Law Journal 158, this Court held that the Court has power to accept the Written Statement after 90 days as the provision is directory and not mandatory. The provision is no doubt directory. In the instant case the defendant has taken every thing very casually and has raised absolutely flimsy grounds for not filing the Written Statement. Even after the rejection of the last application dated 06.10.2006 the Written Statement is sought to be filed on 28.02.2008, that is more than 16 months after the last application was rejected. This delay is not explained. Supreme Court in Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faji Mohammad & Ors. 2009(2) ALL MR 486 has quoted with approval its own two decisions in Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others (2005)4 Supreme Court Cases 480, R. N. Jadi & Brothers and Ors. Vs. Subhashchandra (2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 420. Supreme Court quotes observations in R. N. Jadi & Brothers case as follows: “The matter was yet again considered by a three-judge Bench of this Court in R. N. Jadi & Brothers and Ors. Vs. Subhashchandra – (2007)6 SCC 420 : [2007 ALL SCR 1981] P. K. Balasubramanyan J. who was also a member in Kailash [2005(5) ALL MR (S. C.) 689 (supra) in his concurring judgment stated the law thus: 14. It is true that procedure is the handmaid of justice. The court must always be anxious to do justice and to prevent victories by way of technical knockouts. But how far that concept can be stretched in the context of the amendments brought to the Code and in the light of the mischief that was sought to be averted is a question that has to be seriously considered. The court must always be anxious to do justice and to prevent victories by way of technical knockouts. But how far that concept can be stretched in the context of the amendments brought to the Code and in the light of the mischief that was sought to be averted is a question that has to be seriously considered. I am conscious that I was a party to the decision in Kailash Vs. Nanhku which held that the provision was directory and not mandatory. But there could be situations where even a procedural provisional could be construed as mandatory, no doubt retaining a power in the Court, in an appropriate case, to exercise a jurisdiction to take out the rigour of that provision or to mitigate genuine hardship. It was in that contest that in Kailash Vs. Nanhku it was stated that the extension of time beyond 90 days was not automatic and that the court, for reasons to be recorded, had to be satisfied that there was sufficient justification for departing from the time limit fixed y the Code and the power inhering in the court in terms of Section 148 of the Code. Kailash is no authority for receiving written statement, after the expiry of the period permitted by law, in a routine manner. 15. A dispensation that makes Order 8 Rule 1 directory, leaving it to the courts to extend the time indiscriminately would tend to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the amendments to the Code. It is, therefore, necessary to emphasise that the grant of extension of time beyond 30 days is not automatic that it should be exercised with caution and for adequate reasons and that an extension of time beyond 90 days of the service of summons must be granted only based on a clear satisfaction of the justification for granting such extension, the court being conscious of the fact that even the power of the court for extension inhering in Section 148 of the Code, has also been restricted by the legislature. It would be proper to encourage the belief in litigants that the imperative of Order 8 Rule 1 must be adhered to and that only in a rare and exceptional case, will the breach thereof will be condoned. It would be proper to encourage the belief in litigants that the imperative of Order 8 Rule 1 must be adhered to and that only in a rare and exceptional case, will the breach thereof will be condoned. Such an approach by courts alone can carry forward the legislative intent of avoiding delays or at least in curtailing the delays in the disposal of suits filed in courts. The lament of Lord Denning in Allen Vs. Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons that law’s delay have been intolerable and last so long as to turn justice sour, is true of our legal system as well. Should that state of affairs continue for all times?’ While dealing with the decision in Kailash Vs. Nanhku Supreme Court observes as follows: “Although in view of the terminologies used therein the period of 90 days prescribed for filing written statement appears to be a mandatory provision, this Court in Kailash (supra) upon taking into consideration the fact that in a given case the defendants may face extreme hardship in not being able to defend the suit only because he had not filed written statement within a period of 90 days, opined that the said provision was directory in nature. However, while so holding this Court in no uncertain terms stated that defendants may be permitted to file written statement after expiry of period of 90 days only on exceptional situation. The question came up for consideration before this Court in M. Srinivasa Prasad & Ors. Vs. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Ors. 2007(5) SCALE 171 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court upon noticing Kailash [2005 (5) ALL MR (S.C.) 689] (supra) held as under: “7.Since neither the trial Court nor the High Court have indicated any reason to justify the acceptance of the written statement after the expiry of time fixed, we set aside the orders of the trial Court and that of the High Court. The matter is remitted to the trial Court to consider the matter afresh in the light of what has been stated in Kailash’s case (supra). The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.” It is, therefore obvious that in exceptional situation the Court can condone the delay and accept the Written Statement after 90 days. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.” It is, therefore obvious that in exceptional situation the Court can condone the delay and accept the Written Statement after 90 days. Supreme Court also says that the time can be extended based on clear satisfaction of justification to extend the time. Supreme Court even says that it would be proper to encourage the belief in the litigants that the imperative of Order 8, Rule 1 must be adhered to. 7. In the instant case defendant casually sought time to file Written Statement thrice by filing simple applications for adjournment and the Court casually extended the time. In fact the law required Written Statement to be filed within 30 days. Defendant did not insist on supply of copies and made flimsy complaints of summons being not in proper form on the fourth occasion. It did not make clear which documents it wanted without which Written Statement could not be drafted. It was imperative on the part of defendants to explain to the Court the documents required and direction to supply. Defendants just casually went on making applications and did not take seriously even the rejection of the last application. The conduct and complacency of defendants clearly leads one to reject the prayer to accept the Written Statement on record. Claim in the instant case is no doubt very big. Inspite of claim being huge unfortunately the defendant and the lawyer were extremely complacent and casual. Lower Court should not have in such circumstances accepted the Written Statement. I, therefore, allow the Writ Petition and reject the application for permission to file Written Statement on record. Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.