JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred against an order passed by the learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat dated 18th January, 2008 in Money Suit No. 1 of 2007 whereby stage of filing of the written statement has been closed down and the petitioner being an original defendant, therefore, has challenged this order. 2. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that Money Suit No. 1 of 2007 has been instituted by the respondent and the petitioner is original defendant. Petitioners as original defendant has filed his appearance in the suit on 14th August, 2007 and the learned Trial Court has denied the filing of the written statement vide order dated 18th January, 2008. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that original defendant will file his written statement immediately and the matter may be decided by the Trial Court within stipulated time otherwise stay granted by this Court will continue for the years together. Petitioner is ready and willing to pay token cost also to the original plaintiff. 3. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent though he has been served. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looking to the impugned order dated 18th of January, 2008 passed by learned Munsif Bermo at Tenughat in Money Suit No. 1 of 2007 it appears that present petitioner is an original defendant who has filed his appearance on 14th of August, 2007 and has not filed his written statement mainly for the reason that some important documents were not available and therefore there was some delay in filing of the written statement. The filing of written statement has been denied by the impugned order dated 18th of January, 2008. 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons assigned for some delay in filing of the written statement, I hereby allow the filing of the written statement by the original defendant by quashing the order passed by learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat dated 18th January, 2008 in Money Suit No. 1 of 2007. The provision of Order-VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. are not mandatory in nature. This is a procedure one. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others, AIR 2005 SC 2441 in para 46 (iv), which reads as under: 46. The provision of Order-VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. are not mandatory in nature. This is a procedure one. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others, AIR 2005 SC 2441 in para 46 (iv), which reads as under: 46. (iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the court to extend the time. Though the language of the proviso to Rule 1 Order 8 CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non-compliance. The provision being in the domain of the procedural law it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not completely taken away. (emphasis supplied) 6. It has been also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 2005 SC 3353 in paras 20 and 21, which read as under: 20. The use of the word "shall" in Order 8 Rule 1 by itself is not conclusive to determine whether the provision is mandatory or directory. We have to ascertain the object which is required to be served by this provision and its design and context in which it is enacted. The use of the word "shall" is ordinarily indicative of mandatory nature of the provision but having regard to the context in which it is used or having regard to the intention of the legislation, the same can be construed as directory. The rule in question has to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. The rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. In the present context, the strict interpretation would defeat justice. 21. The rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. In the present context, the strict interpretation would defeat justice. 21. In construing this provision, support can also be had from Order 8 Rule 10 which provides that where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, the court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. On failure to file written statement under this provision, the court has been given the discretion either to pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. In the context of the provision, despite use of the word "shall", the court has been given the discretion to pronounce or not to pronounce the judgment against the defendant even if the written statement is not filed and instead pass such order as it may think fit in relation to the suit. In construing the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 and Rule 10, the doctrine of harmonious construction is required to be applied. The effect would be that under Rule 10 Order 8, the Court in its discretion would have the power to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of the period of 90 days provided in Order 8 Rule 1. There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The court has wide power to "make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit". Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time limit of 90 days. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order VIII Rule 1. (emphasis supplied) 7. In view of the aforesaid two decisions I hereby allow the application preferred by the original defendant for filing of the written statement with a cost of Rs.500/-. This amount will be deposited by the original defendant before the Trial Court and upon proper application by the plaintiff the same will be allowed to be withdrawn. 8. This writ petition is allowed and disposed of. 9. Stay granted earlier stand vacated and I hereby direct the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of Money Suit No. 1 of 2007.