ORDER : B. Manohar, J. 1. The petitioners are defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 390 of 2013 on the file of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Navalgunda. They have filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the order dated 21-8-2014, rejecting the application filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking permission to file the written statement by condoning the delay in filing the written statement. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking for possession of suit property. Defendants 1 to 4 were served with notice on 16-12-2013. However, they did not file the written statement as provided under Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC. After lapse of more than six months, an application was filed seeking condonation of delay and also seeking permission to file written statement. The plaintiff filed objection to the said application contending that, at that belated stage, the written statement filed by the defendant could not be accepted. It was contended by the plaintiff that, as per the provision of Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC, the written statement has to be filed within a period of 30 days after the service of notice, in any case, within an extended period of 90 days. But in the instant case, after lapse of more than six months, the written statement was sought to be filed along with the application for condonation of delay. 2. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail, found that the explanation offered for delay in filing the written statement was not acceptable and the reason assigned by the defendants would not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay and rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the defendants therein. 3. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders impugned and other relevant records. 4. The records clearly disclose that the respondent herein has filed the suit seeking for possession of suit properties. Defendants 1 to 4 were served with notice on 16-12-2013. After lapse of six months, they sought to file the written statement. They also filed an application for condonation of delay along with the written statement. 4. The records clearly disclose that the respondent herein has filed the suit seeking for possession of suit properties. Defendants 1 to 4 were served with notice on 16-12-2013. After lapse of six months, they sought to file the written statement. They also filed an application for condonation of delay along with the written statement. It was explained in the application that as they wanted to produce some documents along with the written statement, they had applied for the same, but they could not get the documents in time and hence there was delay. The Trial Court considering the explanation offered by the defendants found that it does not constitute sufficient ground and that there being no bona fide in the contention urged rejected the application. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and Others, ILR 2005 Kar. 2443 (SC) : AIR 2005 SC 2441 : 2005 AIR SCW 2346 : (2005) 4 SCC 480 has laid down a law that, Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory and it is regulatory in nature. The Court can accept the written statement, even if it is filed beyond limitation period. If the parties show sufficient cause, the Court can condone the delay. If the written statement filed by the defendant is not accepted, it will cause prejudice to his case and will cause irreparable loss. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. The delay sought to be condoned is not an inordinate delay and it is only marginal. It will prejudice to the case of the defendant. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21-8-2014 is quashed. The Trial Court is directed to accept the written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- payable to the plaintiff within a period of three weeks.