Judgment: 1. rule. rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for contesting parties. 2. The order passed by the civil judge, junior division, wadvani, on 08.02.2011, below exhibit61 in r.c.s. no.65/2008, (old no. 496/2006) rejecting the application tendered by petitioner original defendant no.4 for setting aside no written statement order, is subjected to challenge in this writ petition. 3. respondent no.1 original plaintiff instituted regular civil suit no.496/2006 (new no.65/2008) in the court of civil judge, junior division, majalgaon, claiming decree of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural property situate at village katiwadgaon, tq.wadvani. Defendant no.1, who is father of plaintiff, appeared in the suit and presented consent written statement. Defendants no.2 and 3, who are also related to plaintiff and defendant no.1, did not file written statement. As such, no written statement order came to be passed against them on 05.04.2007. Defendant no.4 petitioner herein also could not present his written statement, as such, no written statement order came to be passed against him on 13.11.2007. 4. The petitioner defendant no.4 presented an application on 27.01.2011 requesting the court to set aside no written statement order and permit defendant no.4 to file written statement. It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for petitioner defendant no.4 that the suit was initially presented in the majalgaon court and same was numbered as r.c.s. no.496/2006. In view of establishment of court at wadvani since 15th august 2008, suit presented in the majalgaon court came to be transferred to the newly established court at wadvani and renumbered as r.c.s. no.65/2008. It is the contention of petitioner { defendant no.4 that no notice of transfer of suit came to be issued to the petitioner defendant no.4. Defendant no.4, through his counsel, caused appearance before wadvani court on 27.01.2011, on which date, he presented an application requesting the court to set aside no written statement order. It is contended that defendant no.4 has not intentionally failed to file the written statement and the lapse occurred in not presenting the written statement is attributable to transfer of suit from one court to another court. It is also contended that since defendants no.1 to 3 are not contesting the suit presented by plaintiff, it is only defendant no.4, whose rights are affected, is required to contest the suit. 5. It is also contended that since defendants no.1 to 3 are not contesting the suit presented by plaintiff, it is only defendant no.4, whose rights are affected, is required to contest the suit. 5. The dispute between the parties is in respect of entitlement to the immovable agricultural property. The ends of justice would be met if petitioner defendant no.4 is granted an opportunity to place his defence on record. Considering the reasons set out by defendant no.4 for his failure to present written statement within time, i am convinced that the application tendered by the petitioner original defendant no.4 should have been considered in a positive manner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment in the matter of shaikh salim haji abdul khayumsab vs. Kumar & others , reported in 2006 (1) bom.c.r. 57 . It is observed by the apex court in paras 10, 14 and 15, as below: “10 all the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of the cpc or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. 14 processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administrative of justice. 15 it is also to be noted that though the power of the court under the proviso appended to rule 1 of order viii is circumscribed by the words “ shall not be later than ninety days” but the consequences flowing from nonextension of time are not specifically provided though they may be read by necessary implication. Merely, because a provision of law is couched in a negative language implying mandatory character, the same is not without exceptions. Merely, because a provision of law is couched in a negative language implying mandatory character, the same is not without exceptions. The courts, when called upon to interpret the nature of the provision, may, keeping in view the entire context in which the provision came to be enacted, hold the same to be directory though worded in the negative form.” 6. It is to be noted that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and in appropriate cases, the courts are expected to exercise discretion in order to meet ends of justice. The provisions of order 8 rule 1 of the civil procedure code are held to be not mandatory and are directory in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, i am of the view that defendant no.4 needs to be given an opportunity to putforth his defence on record. At the same time, plaintiff needs to be compensated for the inconvenience caused to him, by directing defendant no.4 – petitioner herein to pay costs. 7. Writ petition is, thus, allowed. The order passed by the civil judge, junior division, wadvani, on 08.02.2011, below exhibit61 in r.c.s. no.65/2008, is quashed and set aside and the application tendered by defendant no.4 at exhibit61 shall be deemed to have been allowed. The trial court shall accept the written statement tendered on record by defendant no.4. Defendant no.4 – petitioner herein shall deposit an amount of rs.2500/( rs.two thousand five hundred) in the trial court towards costs payable to the plaintiff, within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of the amount of costs, plaintiff shall be entitled to withdraw the same. 8. rule is accordingly made absolute.