ORDER 15.7.2011 — The order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Padampur, in C.S. No.68 of 2007 rejecting the petition filed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C. to set side the ex parte order and accept their written statement, has been assailed in this writ petition. As it appears from the impugned order, the petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 appeared in Court on 3.3.2008 but did not file their written statement despite several adjournments granted to them and ultimately order was passed setting them ex parte on 24.6.2008. A petition was filed by the petitioners to set aside the ex parte order and to accept their written statement on the ground of illness. The said petition has been rejected on the ground that the Hon’ble High Court in its Letter No.367(14) dated 16.1.2008 has directed the Court to scrupulously adhere to the time frame relating to filing of written statement under Order 8 Rule 1, C.P.C. and only in exceptional cases allow to file written statement beyond the time limit and in view of such, the plea taken by the petitioners about illness was not sufficient. The letter of the Hon’ble High Court as referred to in the impugned order is in the administrative side. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Krushna Chandra Sahoo -v- Shyam Sundar Sahoo and others, reported in 2005 (1) OLR-104, in which the fact situation was very much similar to the present case. In the aforesaid case while setting aside the ex parte order this Court gave opportunity to the defendant to file petition under Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C., before the trial Court for consideration for acceptance of written statement with the following observations:- “There is no quarrel about the proposition that after lapse of ninety days a written statement cannot be accepted as per provision of Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. But then, Order 8 Rule 9 CPC clearly stipulates that a Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties, and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same. This being the position of law, it cannot be said that the time fixed under Order 8, Rule 1 CPC is an iron-tight jacket and cannot be extended. This being the position of law, it cannot be said that the time fixed under Order 8, Rule 1 CPC is an iron-tight jacket and cannot be extended. In given circumstances a Court on perusal of the materials, if requires a written statement to be filed for an efficacious adjudication of the inter se disputes, may exercise its discretion under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC and direct the defendant to file written statement within thirty days. In view of the aforesaid position, without interfering with the impugned order, I give liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC before the Court below. If such a petition is filed, the said Court shall consider the same on its own merit.” The aforesaid decision applies to the present case. Since the plea of illness of the defendants has not been controverted by the opposite party-plaintiff, the same is accepted and the Trial Court is directed to accept the written statement of Defendant nos. 1 and 2 subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) to the plaintiff. The cost shall be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff within a period of three weeks from today before the Court below. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.