ORDER : The controversy within the parties before this Court lies within a very narrow compass. The defendant no.1, who is petitioner before this Court, has been debarred from filing written statement by the court below by order dated 06.08.2011 and subsequently a petition filed by the petitioner to recall the order by which he was debarred, has also been dismissed by order dated 01.12.2012 passed by Sub Judge-III, Giridih in Title Suit No.77 of 2010. 2. After filing of the suit, the defendant appeared in the suit, upon notice by the court, on 20.12.2010 but he could not file his written statement within 90 days of his appearance since his wife was suffering from Malaria and he was busy in treatment of his wife till 02.05.2012 and only thereafter he came to know that the court below vide order dated 06.08.2011 has debarred him from filing written statement. The petitioner even then filed his written statement on 03.05.2012 but since he was debarred by the court below, his written statement was not accepted. Thereafter, he filed a petition on 16.05.2012 for recall of the said order dated 06.08.2011 and accept his written statement which he has already filed but as indicated above his petition filed for recall of the earlier order was also rejected. Hence, this writ. 3. Learned counsel, Mr. Murthy, appearing for the petitioner assailing the two orders of the court below seriously contended that the court below failed to consider the reasons advanced by the petitioners for delay in filing written statement and misconstrued the spirit of provisions of the Order VIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. by interpreting its provision of filing of written statement within period of 90 days as mandatory in nature. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would suffer serious prejudice if the written statement is not accepted and he is not allowed to contest the suit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a judgment reported in the case M/s R.N. Jadi & Brothers Versus Subhashchandra; 2007(4) JLJR 98 (SC). 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would suffer serious prejudice if the written statement is not accepted and he is not allowed to contest the suit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a judgment reported in the case M/s R.N. Jadi & Brothers Versus Subhashchandra; 2007(4) JLJR 98 (SC). 4. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff submits that admittedly the written statement was not filed within the statutory period of 90 days, the court below rightly debarred him from filing written statement and rejected his prayer to recall the order and no sufficient explanation was given by the petitioner for delay in filing the written statement. 5. Having heard the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned order of the court below and records of this case, I find that Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. after amendment casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons and in case of failure within extended time of 90 days. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case M/s R.N. Jadi & Brothers Versus Subhashchandra (supra) while considering a similar situation in which written statement was filed beyond the extended period of 90 days has held that the said provision does not specifically take away the power of the court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for and further held that the nature of the provision contained in Order VIII Rule 1 is procedural one and it is not mandatory rather the same has been substituted with intention to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same but the duty has also been cast upon the defendant in such case to come forward with a reasonable explanation of the delay. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same but the duty has also been cast upon the defendant in such case to come forward with a reasonable explanation of the delay. It appears from the order impugned and the petition filed in the court below for recall of the earlier order of debarring the petitioner, I find that though the petitioner has not substantiated the fact of illness of his wife by producing any medical certificate but the petitioner has stated in his petition that she was getting treatment by local doctors but it is the fact that the petitioner had already filed the written statement in the court below on 03.05.2012. 7. Our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that a party should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in the proceeding. Undoubtedly, the trial court had granted time even beyond 90 days as stipulated in the provisions and only thereafter debarred the petitioner from filing written statement but as the written statement has already been filed, the petitioner should not have been debarred from contesting the suit. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 06.08.2011 by which the petitioner was debarred from filing written statement and the order dated 01.12.2012 by which the recall petition was dismissed by Sub Judge-III, Giridih in Title Suit No.77 of 2010 are, hereby, set aside but with a cost of Rs.2000/- paid to the plaintiff by defendant-petitioner. The written statement already filed shall be duly taken note of by the trial court. 9. This writ petition is, thus, allowed with no order as to costs.