JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 14th December, 2010 whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application of the defendant filed under Order 8, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC and allowed the written statement to be taken on record, with the cost of Rs. 1000/-. 3. Learned counsel canvassed that the suit came to be filed on 30th July, 2008 and the defendant-petitioner put in his appearance in the Court on next date. He was required to file the written statement within the stipulated period of thirty days from the date of service of summons on him and further within the extended time falling within 90 days, but the defendant filed the written statement on 7th September, 2009 whereas the right to file the written statement had been closed by the Court on 13th January, 2009. The learned trial Court has not assigned any reason for allowing the application filed under Order 8, Rule 10 of CPC. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He has cited two judgments rendered in the cases of M/s Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC, 1574 and Mohammed Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad & Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC(Supp) 1741 , in support of his arguments. 4. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the impugned order as also the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noticed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Rani Kusum v. Smt. Kanchan Devi & Ors. reported in Western Law Cases (SC) Civil 2005 (2) 390 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the 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 defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended, but the defendant should not be granted extension of time as a matter of routine. In the case of Kailash v. Nanhku & Others reported in 2005(4) SCC 480 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC to be directory and not mandatory, but at the same time cautioned the courts that the directory provisions should not be misunderstood as nullifying the entire force infused in Rule 1 Order 8 of CPC. 5. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is revealed that the written statement has already been taken on record by the learned trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that the learned trial Court has not assigned the sufficient cause for allowing the application and taking the written statement on record after expiry of 90 days of the service of summon on defendant, but since the written statement has already been taken on record, I in the interest of justice, do not feel inclined to upset the impugned order of the learned trial Court as it may cause injustice, at this stage, to the respondent-defendant. 7. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed accordingly. 8. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application filed therewith does not survive and that also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******