JUDGEMENT : M.L. Mehta, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assails order dated 13.12.2011 of the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC), West whereby the right of the petitioner to file WS to the suit filed against him was closed. 2. The petitioner was served with the summons of the suit through registered post on 13th September 2008 and again through Process Server on 18th September 2008. Taking as it is as stated by the petitioner that she was served on 18th September 2008, only she was required to file her written statement within 30 days of the service i.e. on or before 17th October 2008. 3. As per Order 8 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, the period for filing WS is 30 days from the date of service of summons on the respondent and if the WS is not filed within this stipulated period of 30 days, then on the respondent's showing good cause of inability to file the same within 30 days, the WS can be filed within 90 days. 4. In this case, the counsel for the petitioner appeared before the Court of Civil Judge on 20th November 2008, but, no WS was filed. On 19th January, 2009 the petitioner appeared in person and the matter was adjourned to 26th February 2009 for filing the WS. However, when none appeared for the petitioner on this date and no WS was filed, the defence of the petitioner was struck off. 5. It was the case of the petitioner that next date of hearing was noted down as 28th February 2009 instead of 26th February 2009. When the petitioner appeared in the Court on 28th February 2009 she did not find her case listed on that day and on inquiry she came to know that it was listed on 26th February 2009 when it was adjourned for 25th April 2009. 6. The learned Trial Court had taken note of all these facts and noted that no WS was filed within the statutory period of 30 days and even no application for condonation of delay was filed thereafter. 7. 6. The learned Trial Court had taken note of all these facts and noted that no WS was filed within the statutory period of 30 days and even no application for condonation of delay was filed thereafter. 7. Taking as it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was served on 18th September 2008 and that next date was noted down as 28th February 2009, neither any WS was filed nor any application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner till the passing of the impugned order by the Civil Judge. There was apparently unexplained delay of more than four months which period was even beyond the period of 90 days which could be granted by the Court on showing good cause of inability to file WS by the petitioner in 30 days. 8. After the amendment of Order 8 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, an obligation is casted on the defendant to file WS within 30 days after service of summons on him. However, for the reasons to be recorded in writing the court may, in a given case, also extend the time up to 90 days for filing written statement. There is no doubt that the provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code is directory and not substantive and that in an appropriate case, on the defendant showing good cause of not being able to file the WS within the period of 30 days, the court can extend the time. But it is trite that the time could only be extended in exceptional hard cases. It was apparent from the legislative intention which has fixed the upper time limit as 90 days. Thus, the discretion could be exercised by the Court to extend the time not in routine and on the mere asking of the defendant. It is more so when the period of 90 days stands expired. As per Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. UOI AIR 2005 SC 3353 , the discretion of the court to extend the time could not be exercised frequently and routinely so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. 9. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.