JUDGMENT Per K.C. Sharma -- 1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 10.8.2010 passed in Case No. 80-A-20/09 by the Jt. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ujjain, the applicant has preferred this revision u/s. 77 (14) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for short, ('the Act'). 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the non-applicant filed a dispute u/s. 64 of the Act for the recovery of Rs.74,35,987/- against the applicant. Notice of the dispute was served upon the applicant on 16.1.2009 and the case was fixed on 3.2.2009. But, on 3.2.2009, inspite of service of the notice, the applicant did not appear before the Court and the case was adjourned. On 8.5.2009, the lower Court proceeded ex-parte against the applicant and the case was fixed on 22.6.2009. On 22.6.2009 the applicant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, to set aside the ex-parte order passed against the applicant. The same was allowed vide order dated 15.10.2009 and the case was fixed for filing written statement. The applicant sought time again and again to file written statement. The case was further adjourned on the request of the applicant for 6.11.2009, 9.11.2009, and 4.12.2009, but the applicant did not file written statement and again sought adjournment. However, trial Court on 4.12.2009 granted adjournment as a last chance on the request of the applicant with the direction that if he fails to comply with the order of the Court his right for filing written statement will be closed and for this the case was fixed for 4.1.2010. On 4.1.2010, instead of filing written statement the applicant again requested the Court to adjourn the case. Court disallowed the prayer of the applicant and passed the impugned order. Hence, this Revision Petition. 3. Point for consideration in this Revision is whether the Court committed any jurisdictional error, irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order. 4. Shri Nagre submits that the lower Court has wrongly disallowed the prayer of the applicant and closed the right of defence of the applicant. If proper opportunity of hearing is not given to the applicant, the justice will be defeated and he will suffer a lot. Hence, last chance be given to him. He is ready to file his written statement before the trial Court on the day fixed by the Tribunal for this purpose. If proper opportunity of hearing is not given to the applicant, the justice will be defeated and he will suffer a lot. Hence, last chance be given to him. He is ready to file his written statement before the trial Court on the day fixed by the Tribunal for this purpose. He also submits that the Tribunal may fix any date for appearance before the Trial Court and on the same date the applicant will positively file his written statement, without fail. 5. Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides for Written Statement. Order 8 Rule 1 is reproduced hereunder:- "The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence." Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as many be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. 6. The above provisions were submitted by Act No.22 of 2002. The object behind substituting Order 8 Rule 1 CPC in the present shape is to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases much to the chagrin of the plaintiffs and petitioners approaching the Court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the Court, faced with frequent prayer for adjournments. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. The process of justice may be speeded up and hurried but the fairness which is a basic element of justice cannot be permitted to be buried. The provision spells out a disability of the defendant: a careful reading of the language in which Order 8 Rule 1 has been drafted, shows that it casts an obligation on the defendant to filed the written statement within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. 7. Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is more followed in breach than in compliance. Adjournments are sought for and granted by the Courts as a matter of course. 7. Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is more followed in breach than in compliance. Adjournments are sought for and granted by the Courts as a matter of course. Proceedings in the suits are not allowed to move much less conclude by one of the parties interested in delay. The spirit of providing justice expeditiously is shattered and stalled by non-observance of Order 8, Rule 1, CPC and as a result thereof, it takes years and years before the proceedings are concluded before the trial Courts. If the delay in disposal of cases is to be curbed, the wholesome provision of Order 8 has to be given the meaning it deserves. Interest of justice demands that the proceedings before the civil Court are completed as expeditiously as possible and effective work is done in every case on each date of hearing. It was only in this background that Order 8 Rule 1 has been enacted by amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that the rules of procedure are only handmaid of justice and not its master, but the rules by its proper implementation would certainly advance the cause of justice. The Courts are over-burdened with cases and every day substantial time is lost in granting adjournments. Time has come that this malody is treated with even hands at all levels. Every one connected with administration of justice is deeply concerned with the mounting arrears and delay in disposal of the cases and it is high time that all concerned tried their best to see that the cases are not adjourned unnecessarily and at mere asking. 8. The parameters for extending the time granted by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code have been delineated by Supreme Court in several cases. In Kailash v. Nanhku and others, (2005) 4 SCC 480 , it was noted as follows:- "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 provisions 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 the non-compliance. The provisions 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 the non-compliance. The provision being 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. (v) Though Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is a part of procedural law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it is needed to be given for circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case." 9. Though in the memo of appeal, the applicant has mentioned that on that date 4.1.2010, the applicant was not available to sign the written statement because he was out of station. Even for the sake of arguments if this was the reason for the adjournment, in that case also neither the reason given by the applicant was convincing nor comes under the purview of an extra-ordinary/ exceptional circumstances. Hence, the lower Court has rightly rejected the prayer for adjournment. 10. Even for the sake of arguments if this was the reason for the adjournment, in that case also neither the reason given by the applicant was convincing nor comes under the purview of an extra-ordinary/ exceptional circumstances. Hence, the lower Court has rightly rejected the prayer for adjournment. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant was served with the notice on 16.1.2009. He repeatedly prayed for time before the lower Court for filing written statement. This clearly shows his malafide intention to delay the case. A huge amount is involved in the case and the applicant deliberately and intentionally avoided to file written statement before the trial Court, so, that he may get more and more time to delay the proceedings. 11. In the light of above circumstances and facts of the case, it is found that after service of the notice on 16.1.2009, number of opportunities were given to the applicant to file his written statement. On 4.1.2010 when last opportunity was given, the Advocate of the appellant again prayed for time for which no convincing reason was given by the counsel. Hence, the prayer of the applicant for time to file written statement was rightly rejected by the trial Court. It cannot be said that the trial Court has committed any error, irregularity of illegality in passing the impugned order. 12. Consequently, the Revision has no force and it is dismissed at motion stage.