JUDGMENT : Subrata Talukdar, J. Heard the parties. 2. Sri Asit Kumar Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order no. 46 dated 17th of September, 2008 passed by the learned Second Civil Court (Senior Division) at Barasat in Title Suit No. 33 of 2005. By the said impugned order the learned Second Civil Court (Senior Division), Barasat, was pleased to consider the hearing of a petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that on a careful perusal of the record it is found that both the contesting defendants have already filed their written statement. 4. In such view of the matter, the learned Trial Court further found that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. In such view of the matter, the learned Trial Court was pleased to reject the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC praying for rejecting the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 and 3. 6. Prior to considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties, it is relevant to note that by order no. 38 dated 3rd of December, 2007 the learned Trial Court was pleased to direct completion of service return. The matter, being Title Suit No. 33 of 2005, was taken up for hearing vide order nos. 39, 40 and 41 dated 7th of January, 2008, 31st of January, 2008 and 18th of February, 2008 respectively. 7. The learned Trial Court on the said dates was pleased to pass necessary direction for taking steps regarding service of summons upon the defendant no. 2. By order no. 41 dated 18th of February, 2008, the learned Trial Court was pleased to record that the defendant no. 2 has not appeared in spite of service of summons. Therefore, the suit would be heard ex parte against the defendant no. 2. The learned Trial Court was pleased to fix 30th of April, 2008 for framing of issues. 8. Thereafter, by order no. 42 dated 26th of February, 2008 written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 and directed to be kept on record by the learned Trial Court. 2. The learned Trial Court was pleased to fix 30th of April, 2008 for framing of issues. 8. Thereafter, by order no. 42 dated 26th of February, 2008 written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 and directed to be kept on record by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court was also pleased to note that copy of the said written statement was not served on the petitioner/plaintiff. 9. By order no. 43 dated 30th of April, 2008 the learned Trial Court was pleased to fix 30th of April, 2008 for framing of issues and by order no. 44 dated 16th of May, 2008 the learned Trial Court took on record the petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. The learned Trial Court was also pleased to record that the copy of the written statement already filed in Court has been served upon the plaintiff/petitioner and objected to. 10. Thereafter, by the order impugned no. 46 dated 17th of September, 2008, the learned Trial Court was pleased not to entertain the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. 11. Sri Asit Sanyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff, has submitted that the learned Trial Court committed grave illegality by not considering the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. 12. Sri Sanyal has submitted that the contesting defendants had filed the written statement grossly out of time and there was no justification for the learned Trial Court to accept such written statement beyond the statutory period of time as prescribed. He further submits that the present opposite parties/defendants have failed to make a good cause in submitting their written statement out of time. 13. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following judgments: (1) AIR 1982 J&K 93 in the matter of Mufti Baha-Ud-Din Farooqi, Ag. C.J. v. Chuni Lal Chowdhry; (2) 2005(3) Supreme 603 in the matter of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. ; (3) (2009) 3 SCC 513 in the matter of Mohammed Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad; (4) (2007) 6 SCC 420 in the matter of R.N. Jadi & Brothers And Others v. Subhashchandra ; and (5) AIR 1984 SC 1401 in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. District Judge, Unnao and others. 14. ; (3) (2009) 3 SCC 513 in the matter of Mohammed Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad; (4) (2007) 6 SCC 420 in the matter of R.N. Jadi & Brothers And Others v. Subhashchandra ; and (5) AIR 1984 SC 1401 in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. District Judge, Unnao and others. 14. Relying upon all the aforesaid judgments, Sri Sanyal submits that whether the written statement filed beyond time shall be considered to be directory or mandatory will depend on the facts of each case. Sri Sanyal further submits that in the facts of the present case the conduct of the contesting defendants does not entitle them to any relief from the learned Trial Court to file their written statement out of time. 15. Per contra, Sri Asoke Kumar Chakraborti, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 1, submits that by order no. 42 dated 26th of February, 2008 the written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1, accepted by the learned Trial Court and kept with the record. However, such written statement was served subsequently on the petitioner/plaintiff and recorded by the learned Trial Court vide order no. 44 dated 16th of May, 2008. 16. Therefore, Sri Chakraborti has argued that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Supporting the order impugned no. 46 dated 17th of September, 2008 Sri Chakraborti points out the written statement of the defendants already stood accepted by the learned Trial Court vide order no. 42 dated 26th of February, 2008 (supra). 17. In such circumstances, there could be no scope for entering into the provision of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC which, inter alia, provides for a procedure when a party fails to present written statement called for by Court. It is the specific submission of Sri Chakraborti that the contingent event provided for under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC for its application is not attracted in the facts of the present case. 18. Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows : "Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court. It is the specific submission of Sri Chakraborti that the contingent event provided for under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC for its application is not attracted in the facts of the present case. 18. Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows : "Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court. -- Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up." 19. Sri Chakraborti submits that the Order 8 Rule 10 application filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff is utterly misconceived and therefore, rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court. 20. Sri Chakraborti further submits that assuming but not admitting that the written statement of the defendants is filed beyond time as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, even then the defendants are not precluded from filing their written statement and the learned Trial Court can accept the same by applying the provision of Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. 21. In support of the abovenoted proposition, Sri Chakraborti relies upon a Single Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2009(2) CHN page 54. Paragraph 9 of the said decision reads as follows : "It has also already been decided by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the time which is fixed for filing written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory. As such, the written statement can be accepted even after the time limit fixed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provided however, the reasons for the delay is explained sufficiently. As such, the written statement can be accepted even after the time limit fixed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provided however, the reasons for the delay is explained sufficiently. That apart, though the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended and thereby a time limit is fixed for filing written statement by the defendant, but still then the jurisdiction of the Court for extending the time for filing the written statement and/or for accepting the written statement filed beyond the time or even filed even on the date when the suit was filed for ex parte hearing under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure still remains unaltered". 22. Sri Chakraborti also relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1984 SC page 38. At paragraph 6 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that mere error of law committed by a learned Trial Court is not sufficient to cause an interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 23. Sri Chakraborti makes his further submission that the written statement was filed admittedly before the issue were framed by the learned Trial Court. He also submits that the present opposite parties/defendants applied before the learned Trial Court for referring the matter to arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Clause in the Contract entered into between the parties. However, the learned Trial Court was pleased to reject such application and consequently, the present opposite parties/defendants took steps for filing the written statement as aforesaid. 24. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 25. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court accepted the written statement filed by the defendant no. 1 vide order no. 42 dated 26th of February, 2008. This Court also finds substance in the argument of Sri Chakraborti that the said order no. 42 dated 26th of February, 2008 has not been challenged by the present petitioner/plaintiff. This Court also notices that the said written statement was accepted by the learned Trial Court prior to the stage of framing issues. 26. Therefore, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the present petitioner/plaintiffs is misconceived. This Court also notices that the said written statement was accepted by the learned Trial Court prior to the stage of framing issues. 26. Therefore, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the present petitioner/plaintiffs is misconceived. This Court finds that once the written statement has been accepted by the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality and/or material failure in exercise of its jurisdiction by rejecting the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. 27. The order impugned no. 46 dated 17th of September, 2008 is not interfered with for the above reasons. 28. However, having regard to the pendency of the Title Suit No. 33 since the year 2005, this Court finds it appropriate to request the learned Trial Court to complete adjudication of the same on its own merits and subject to its calendar within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. 29. CO 1749 of 209 is accordingly disposed of. 30. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 31. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.