Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP 2 for the State. 2. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of order dated 09.07.2012 by which the petition filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 19.11.2011, by which the petitioner was debarred from filing written statement, has been rejected. 3. The respondent no. 4 had filed Election Petition No. 1 of 2011 before the Munsif, Bikramganj, Rohtas with regard to the election of Mukhiya of Amratha Panchayat in Karakat Block of Rohtas District against the petitioner, who is the returned candidate, and others. 4. In the said suit, upon notice, the petitioner appeared on 05.09.2011. However, it appears that the Court on 19.11.2011 had debarred the petitioner from filing written statement. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application for recall of the order which has been rejected on 09.07.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon paper publication he appeared before the Court on 05.09.2011. It is his further case that his written statement was ready on 17.10.2011 but due to there being marriage in the house of the learned counsel appearing for him, the same could not be filed. It is submitted that there was no deliberate laches on the part of the petitioner and thus he should be allowed one opportunity to file written statement. He submits that in such view of the matter, the petitioner was entitled to 90 days time for filing the written statement as per the provision of the amended Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’). He submits that the Court has the power to accept the filing of the written statement even beyond 90 days. For such proposition, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 396. Learned counsel has produced the certified copy of the ordersheet from 25.07.2011 till 15.11.2011 for perusal of the Court and has also read its contents. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Learned counsel has produced the certified copy of the ordersheet from 25.07.2011 till 15.11.2011 for perusal of the Court and has also read its contents. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. It is submitted that after appearing before the Court on 05.09.2011, various dates were fixed by the Court i.e., 15.09.2011, 22.09.2011, 28.09.2011, 17.10.2011, 24.10.2011, 10.11.2011 and 15.11.2011, on which dates the petitioner neither filed attendance nor there was any petition on his behalf seeking any extension of time. This led to the Court to pass order on 19.11.2011 debarring him from filing written statement. Finally the petitioner filed an application on 10.01.2012 for recall of the order dated 19.11.2011. It is submitted that from perusal of the said petition, copy of which is Annexure-4 in the application, it is obvious that the petitioner not having appeared after initially entering appearance on 05.09.2011 is admitted and it is further admitted that due to unfortunate circumstances he came to know that on 19.11.2011 he had been debarred from filing written statement. Learned counsel further submits that from the impugned order dated 09.07.2012 it is also clear that the petitioner had left appearing in the case after 05.09.2011 and thus in view of the statutory limitation of 30 days in filing written statement as per Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code, there being no order allowing further time to the petitioner, either suo motu by the Court or on his application, there is no infirmity in the order impugned by which he has been debarred from filing his written statement. Learned counsel submits that after 30 days the time automatically does not get extended by a further 60 days since, for reasons to be recorded the time may be extended for a maximum of 60 days for filing written statement and that too from the date of service of summons. It is submitted that in the present case even after appearance of the petitioner on 05.09.2011, no application on his behalf, upon expiry of 30 days, for extending the period or giving him further time for filing written statement has been filed. It is submitted that in the present case even after appearance of the petitioner on 05.09.2011, no application on his behalf, upon expiry of 30 days, for extending the period or giving him further time for filing written statement has been filed. Thus, on the expiry of 30 days, even if it is counted from 05.09.2011, having expired without there being any order by the Court extending the time for filing written statement and there also being no petition on behalf of the petitioner for such extension prior to expiry of 30 days period, the order impugned, by which the Court had debarred the petitioner from filing written statement, cannot be faulted. It is submitted that the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab (supra) has no relevance in the present matter inasmuch as it was with regard to the Court having power to extend the time for filing written statement even beyond 90 days. 7. Upon considering the rival contentions and going through the pleadings on record as well as the ordersheet of the Court concerned, this Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the State. The Election Petition is of the year 2011 and the petitioner is the returned candidate. Any delay in the disposal of the petition can only be the advantage of the petitioner and from his conduct it is apparent that there is an attempt with the intention only to delay the Election Petition. Further, the fact of the petitioner not appearing before the Court on many of the dates fixed, cannot be overlooked. The statement made in paragraph 5 of the application is also incorrect inasmuch as it is stated that the written statement was filed in the office of the concerned Court on 17.10.2011; but both from the various orders of the Court as well as from the petition filed by the petitioner himself on 10.01.2012 it is clear that the same was not filed on that day. Further, it cannot be said that just because 90 days had not expired from the date the petitioner had first appeared, he shall be automatically entitled to file his written statement within the said 90 days, for the simple reason that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code itself stipulates that the written statement has to be filed within 30 days and 90 days is an exception to the Rule inasmuch as it provides for extension of the time period to a maximum of 90 days for which also the Court has to record reasons. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab (supra) is also misplaced as the issue involved in the said case was completely different as compared to the present case. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned. 9. The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.