Judgment Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition is directed against the order dated 15102011 passed by the Learned Judge of Bombay City Civil Court by which Order, the Notice of Motion No.2967 of 2010 in S.C. Suit No.1369 of 2004 filed by the Defendant Nos.2 to 5 i.e the Petitioners herein, for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement and for the Written Statement to be taken on record came to be rejected. 3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary facts. Suffice it to say that the Petitioners herein were joined as the Defendants to the suit in question in the year 2009. The suit has been filed by the Respondent No.1 herein for a declaration that the Petitioners original Defendant No.2 to 5 are tress passers and for their consequential eviction. Though the Writ of summons was served upon the Petitioners herein they did not file their Written Statement within time stipulated by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Petitioners therefore filed the instant Application being Notice of Motion No.2967 of 2010 for condonation of delay and for taking the Written Statement of record. The reasons mentioned was that the Defendants were oblivious of the Writ of summons being served upon them as the said Writ of Summons were received by their cousin, which fact was not brought to the notice of the Petitioners. The Trial Court considered the extent of the delay and the reasons mentioned therein, did not find the said reasons worthy of acceptance and therefore dismissed the said Notice of Motion on 15-10-2011. 4. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents contended that there is a delay of 313 days in filing the Written Statement and there are no reasons worth the name mentioned by the Petitioners to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay and for taking the Written Statement on record. 6. Per Contra, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the delay has occasioned for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. 6. Per Contra, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the delay has occasioned for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. He further submitted that if the Written Statement is not allowed to be filed great prejudice would be caused to the Petitioners as then they would be defenceless in so far as the suit is concerned. 7. No doubt that there is a delay of 313 days in filing the Written Statement, the reasons mentioned by the Petitioners prima facie does not inspire confidence. However, with a view to enable the Petitioners to contest the suit on merits, the Petitioners ought to be given an opportunity. For the delay and inconvenience that is caused to the Respondents herein, they can be compensated by way of costs. It is well settled that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is held to be directory and not mandatory and therefore, this Court is not powerless to condone the delay in filing the Written Statement and to take the Written Statement on record, if the facts so warrant. In my view, therefore, the above Petition is required to be allowed. The impugned Order dated 15-10-2011 is, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the Notice of Motion No.2967 of 2010 is allowed and the delay in filing the Written Statement stands condoned. The Petitioners would be entitled to file their Written Statement which according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is ready for filing. The Petitioners to file their Written Statement on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to compensate the original Plaintiff i.e. the Respondent No.1. The Petitioners, therefore, to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-to the Original Plaintiff by cheque in the name of the Original Plaintiff on or before the next date before the Trial Court which I am informed is 27-1-2012. The Original Plaintiff would issue a receipt for the same. The payment of costs is a condition precedent that the Petitioners being entitled to file their Written Statement. The Original Plaintiff would issue a receipt for the same. The payment of costs is a condition precedent that the Petitioners being entitled to file their Written Statement. If the costs are not paid and the evidence of the same is not produced before the Trial Court by 27-1-2012, the benefit of this Order would not enure to the Petitioners and resultantly the Petition will be dismissed. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs.