JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Revision Petition No. TA/8170/2011/Alwar, so also, order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kishangarh Bas (District Alwar) in Case No. 303/2008. 3. As per facts of the case, after taking several opportunities to file reply, on 11.8.2011, the defendants filed written statement and reply to the application for temporary injunction without any application under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The petitioners filed an application under Order 8, Rule 1 , C.P.C. For rejection of the written statement of the defendants but the trial Court rejected the said application vide order dated 23.11.2011 and written statement of the defendants was ordered to be taken on record on the costs of Rs. 500/-. 4. Against said .order, a revision petition was preferred by the petitioners before the Revenue Board and learned Revenue Board after hearing both the parties partly allowed the revision petition to the extent of cost but refused to quash the order as a whole whereby the trial Court took the written statement on record. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer enhanced the cost from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,000/- vide order dated 11.12.2012. 5. The petitioners are challenging both the orders on the ground that without any application for condonation of delay the trial Court took the written statement on record, therefore, both the orders impugned may be quashed and written statement of the defendants which is taken on record may be rejected. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 3 SCC 513 , Mohd. Yusuf v. Faiyaz Ahmed and submits that proper reasons were to be assigned by the trial Court for condonation of delay, therefore, both the orders may be quashed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that as per judgment reported in 2009(2) DNJ 811 , the co-ordinate bench of this Court permitted the defendants to file written statement after imposing cost and observed that provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 are directory in nature. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that as per judgment reported in 2009(2) DNJ 811 , the co-ordinate bench of this Court permitted the defendants to file written statement after imposing cost and observed that provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 are directory in nature. The Board of Revenue after considering the judgment rendered by this Court passed an order that the defendants are illiterate persons coming from village and they have hardly any knowledge of the nuences of the Court practice, therefore, held that trial Court has rightly condoned the delay for taking the written statement on record but enhanced the cost from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,000/-. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that well reasoned order has been passed by the Board of Revenue, therefore, no interference is called for in this writ petition. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners also does not help him because in that case the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court to the High Court because the order was not reasoned order. 8. In view of above, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******