JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Sri Ashish Singh, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent No. 3. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Saharanpur accepting the written statement of the respondent No. 3 which was filed much beyond the time prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the written statement was filed after about 6 years of the knowledge of the suit and therefore, it could not have been accepted. 4. Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. stipulates that a written statement should be filed within 30 days of receiving the summons but where defendant fails to file it within the above time, the Court shall allow him to file it within the extended period not beyond 90 days from the date of the service of the summons. 5. The above provision nowhere provides for the consequences of not filing the written statement within 90 days of the receipt of the summons by the defendant. 6. Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. provides that the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from the defendant and fix time of not more than 30 days for presenting the same. It means that the Court at any time may, if necessary, ask for a written statement to be filed within 30 days irrespective of the limitation set out in Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. 7. In addition to the above Section 148 C.P.C. authorities the Court to enlarge in its discretion the time fixed or granted by the Court for doing any act prescribed or allowed by this Code. 8. Section 151 C.P.C. contains inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 9. The provision of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. is not to be read in isolation and if read together with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 and Sections 148 and 151 C.P.C. it would be apparent that the Court in order to advance substantial justice may permit filing of the written statement even beyond the period of 90 days provided under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. 10. The provision contained in Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. is part of procedural law. It envisages to avoid delay being caused by the defendant in the suit. It has been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory which does not take away the power of the Court to take a written statement on record though filed beyond the time stipulated therein. It only aims to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants, who adopt dilatory tactics. 11. In sum and substance as Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. does not provide for any panel consequences for not filing the written statement within the time prescribed and extended and the said provision is procedural and directory in nature, the Court has ample authority in law to extend time for filing written statement and to accept it even after the expiry of the time prescribed provided good and sufficient cause for not filing it within time is shown. The refusal if at all has to be on sound reason which may not result in miscarriage of justice. 12. In the instant case the respondent No. 3 had put in appearance on 31.3.2003 and had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. through the advocate. Therefore, she had the knowledge of the suit at least from 31.3.2003. She had filed written statement on 29.5.2009 alongwith an application stating that she is an illiterate lady, who is suffering from chronic heart disease and had undergone open heart bye pass surgery on 4.8.2007. She was continuously ill from 2004 and after recouping from the surgery and illness had filed the written statement. There is no material to doubt the illness of the respondent No. 3 and that she had underwent open heart surgery. 13. The Court below on account of the aforesaid illness of the respondent No. 3, her illiteracy and that she had not deliberately caused the delay in filing the written statement has accepted it only to advance the cause of justice. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Court below in accepting the written statement has not acted arbitrarily. Accordingly, the order requires no interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. 15. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Court below in accepting the written statement has not acted arbitrarily. Accordingly, the order requires no interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. 15. The writ petition fails and is dismissed but with the direction to the Court concerned to decide the case No. 186 of 2002 in accordance with law most expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order by curtailing all unnecessary adjournments to the parties and fixing short dates in quick succession. 16. The writ petition is dismissed.