JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, who has filed an impleadment application on behalf of one Kailash Chand who seeks his impleadment as a respondent in this revision. 2. The revision is directed against the order dated 29.04.2009, whereby the trial Court has accepted the written statement filed by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority on payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri M.H. Khan is that the suit was filed on 22.08.2007 against the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. Appearance on behalf of the defendant was filed on 30.08.2007 and the necessary papers were received by them. On 06.08.2007, an interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. As many as 18 dates were fixed thereafter, but no written statement was filed. The written statement was ultimately filed on 28.01.2009 without furnishing any explanation as to why it was being filed belatedly. This written statement filed long after the period of 90 days had elapsed, was not liable to be accepted in view of the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 and Rule 10 CPC. 4. It has been reiterated that no explanation was furnished for this delay in filing the written statement. The trial Court has committed manifest illegality in accepting the written statement. 5. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Zolba Vs. Keshao And Others, 2008 (11) SCC 769 , M/s Aditya Hotels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. And Others, 2007 (103) RD 110 and Kailash Vs. Nanhku And Others, 2005 (4) SCC 480 . 6. Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, Counsel for the Noida Authority has submitted that the written statement has rightly been accepted. The Court below has observed that the Court can always accept a belated written statement and that the injury suffered by the plaintiff can be adequately compensated and, therefore, costs of Rs. 500/- was imposed. 7. He further submits that the land in question had been acquired by the State Government for the Noida Authority and the possession was handed over to the defendant on 23.08.1983. The plaintiff/revisionist has constructed a Dharam Kanta (weigh bridge) over the same without requisite sanction. 500/- was imposed. 7. He further submits that the land in question had been acquired by the State Government for the Noida Authority and the possession was handed over to the defendant on 23.08.1983. The plaintiff/revisionist has constructed a Dharam Kanta (weigh bridge) over the same without requisite sanction. In any case, the plaintiff has no title to the land in question. He has also submitted that directions have been issued by the Division Bench of this Court to the Noida Authority (defendants), to ensure that all unauthorized dharam kantas are removed. The Dharam Kanta of the revisionist is one such unauthorized dharam kanta. 8. Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, who has filed the impleadment application on behalf of Kailash Chand states that his client is running duly authorized dharam kanta, which has been installed after obtaining requisite permissions. His business is suffering a loss on account of operation of unauthorized dharam kantas like the one being operated by the revisionist. It has further been alleged that the suit has been filed in collusion with Noida Authorities who are not performing their statutory functions. They are permitting unauthorized dharam kantas to operate and, therefore, a collusive suit as also the highly belated, written statement. The person seeking impleadment is suffering financial loss on account of interim order operating in this revision. Alongwith the affidavits filed in support of the impleadment application, various orders passed by Division Benches of this Court have been annexed. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. It is no doubt true that the Apex Court has repeatedly held that a belated written statement should not be accepted unless and until there is an adequate explanation for the delay in filing the same. However, it has also been held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and the proviso thereto are not mandatory, but, only directory. It is also true that alongwith the written statement, no explanation was furnished by the defendant, Noida, as to why the same was being filed belatedly. 11. Looking into the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court prima facie, finds substance with the submissions of Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, who has filed the impleadment application that the Noida Authorities are colluding with the revisionist/plaintiff. 11. Looking into the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court prima facie, finds substance with the submissions of Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, who has filed the impleadment application that the Noida Authorities are colluding with the revisionist/plaintiff. It is also clear from the various orders passed by the Division Benches of this Court that directions have been issued to the Noida Authority to remove unauthorized and illegal dharam kantas. It is alleged both by the person seeking impleadment as also Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh that the plaintiff/revisionist is running an unauthorized dharam kanta over land which has been acquired and has been handed over to the Noida Authorities. 12. Under the circumstances, I refuse to interfere in the impugned order, even though, it may not be strictly in accordance with law. In any case, the revisionist stands duly compensated by any loss suffered by him on account of delay in filing the written statement by the costs that have been imposed by the trial Court. 13. The revision is accordingly dismissed as substantial justice appears to have been done between the parties. 14. In so far as the impleadment application is concerned, no orders are being passed thereon. It is left open for the Kailash Chand, who has filed the impleadment application to approach the trial Court in case he wants to participate in the proceedings. 15. In case, an impleadment application is filed by Kailash Chand, it is expected that the trial Court shall deal with the same strictly in accordance with law. 16. Subject to the above observations, this revision is dismissed.