Judgment : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral). The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has sought quashing of the order dated 20.04.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli, whereby he allowed the application filed by the respondents under Order 8 Rule 1 readwith Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘Code’) and permitted the respondents to file their written statement. It is claimed that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same is not only irregular but illegal and, therefore, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. 3. A perusal of the zimini orders upon which a lot of emphasis has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner would reveal that the respondents were granted time to file written statement on 08.07.2014 and on 01.08.2014. But, thereafter it appears that the defendant No.2 died and the matter remained pending for bringing on record his legal representatives. This application came to be allowed only on 25.11.2014 and by the next date i.e. 06.01.2015 the respondent had already filed application under Order 8 Rule 1 readwith Section 151 of the Code for placing on record the written statement. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash versus Nanhku and others (2005) 4 SCC 480 has already held the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code to be directory in nature. Therefore, the Court has discretionary jurisdiction to condone the delay. This, however, does not mean that the defendants can be permitted to file the written statement after 90 days as a matter of course. It is only in exceptional situation that the Courts may enlarge the period. 5. The perusal of the zimini orders show that the main case had derailed on account of the death of defendant No.2. It also appears that the documents as annexed with the plaint for some reasons were also not made available to the respondents. Be that as it may, the delay is not so unreasonable which cannot be condoned otherwise also the petitioner has already been compensated by awarding costs. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be allowed to get away with a “walk over” that too merely on a technical ground. Be that as it may, the delay is not so unreasonable which cannot be condoned otherwise also the petitioner has already been compensated by awarding costs. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be allowed to get away with a “walk over” that too merely on a technical ground. It has to be remembered that procedure is the handmaid of justice and the Courts must be always anxious to do justice and to prevent victories by way of technical knock outs. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine alongwith pending application, if any.