JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2016 passed by District Judge1, Kelapur in Regular Civil Appeal No.23/2012, thereby remanding the Special Civil Suit No.31/2007 to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawada [Kelapur], District Yavatmal for fresh trial in accordance with law and after hearing both the sides. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows: The appellant has filed Special Civil Suit No.31/2007 for specific performance of the contract in respect of the agricultural land bearing Gat No.131/1, area 2 H 23 R situate at village Parsoda, Tq. Wani, District Yavatmal. The suit was based on the agreement of sale dated 15.07.2006. 3. In the said suit, the respondent appeared on service of summons, but failed to file written statement in spite of sufficient opportunity. Hence, the suit proceeded without written statement. As on the date of hearing also the respondent did not remain present, the suit was heard and decided finally on 23.03.2010. The suit came to be decreed and the notice of the execution proceeding was issued to the respondent. 4. Respondent thereafter presented First Appeal No.1126/2010 before this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the said judgment and order. In the said appeal he also filed Civil Application No.819/2011 for grant of permission to file written statement on record at appellate stage. He further presented Civil Application No.820/2011 for grant of permission to file certain documents and affidavit evidence on record. Both these applications were resisted by the appellant herein by filing his written reply. 5. After the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court was enhanced, this appeal came to be transferred to the District Court at Kelapur and it was renumbered. The appeal was heard and came to be dismissed on 13.02.2014. 6. The respondent herein, then preferred Second Appeal No.125/2014 in this Court bringing to the notice of this Court that Civil Application No.819/2011 and Civil Application NO.820/2011 were not decided by the District Court before dismissing the appeal. Hence, this Court vide its judgment and order dated 28.04.2016 remanded the matter back to the District Court for deciding the same after considering both these applications. 7. Hence, this Court vide its judgment and order dated 28.04.2016 remanded the matter back to the District Court for deciding the same after considering both these applications. 7. After remand of the matter, the First Appellate Court heard and decided both these applications, vide his separate orders passed below them and permitted the respondent herein to file written statement on payment of heavy costs of Rs.10,000/::: and further granted permission to him to file documents/affidavit evidence on record. This civil application was also allowed subject to costs of Rs.5000/-. 8. Thereafter, considering that both these applications are allowed, hence, now there was written statement and the evidence affidavit filed along with the documents filed by the respondent, on record, the First Appellate Court thought it fit to remand the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh trial, so that the written statement and the affidavit evidence coupled with the documents filed by respondent can be considered by the Trial Court and Trial Court can decide the suit on merit, after hearing both the parties. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court, vide its impugned judgment and order remanded the matter for fresh trial. 9. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order the present appeal is preferred. According to learned counsel for appellant, the reason given by the First Appellate Court for remand of the matter is not at all correct and legal. It is submitted that there is no such provision for issuing fresh notice to the respondent-defendant at the time of trial for final hearing of the suit and hence, First Appellate Court has committed an illegality in holding that as such notice was not issued to the respondent-defendant, the ex parte decree passed by the Trial Court was not correct and hence, remand was necessary. 10. Further it is submitted that when this Court had directed the First Appellate Court to decide the matter, it was not proper and legal on the part of the First Appellate Court to further remand the matter to the Trial Court. 11. It is also submitted that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in allowing the application filed by respondent-defendant for permission to present his written statement on record. 11. It is also submitted that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in allowing the application filed by respondent-defendant for permission to present his written statement on record. It is urged that as per Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the time to file the W.S. is stipulated of one month and it cannot be extended beyond three months. Therefore, the First Appellate Court could not have extended the time for filing of W.S. especially in the light of the provisions of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which do not permit the extension of such time. 12. Thus according to learned counsel for appellant, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh hearing. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned judgment and order of the First Appellate Court by submitting that the appellant has not challenged the order passed by the First Appellate Court allowing respondent's applications for permission to file W.S. and for permission to produce affidavit evidence with documents. It is submitted that as those orders are complied with and they have become final, it was necessary for the First Appellate Court to remand the matter to the Trial Court for fresh hearing, in view of the written statement and affidavit evidence permitted to be produced on record. The matter was hence required to be decided after taking into consideration the said written statement, affidavit evidence and the documents of the respondent-defendant. According to learned counsel for respondent, therefore, no illegality is committed by the First Appellate Court in passing impugned judgment and order. 14. On these rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, the only point, which arise for my determination is, whether the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court of remanding the matter for fresh hearing is just, legal and correct? 15. The chronology of the events of the litigation elaborated herein above, is more than sufficient to show that the suit was decreed without W.S. and without the presence of respondent-defendant even at the time of hearing, so it was as good as an ex parte decree, though it might have been passed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. 16. It is a matter of record that only when respondent received the notice of execution, he filed the appeal, which came to be dismissed. He filed second appeal before this Court and in that appeal, he had also filed two applications, one for permission to file written statement and another for permission to file affidavit evidence and the documents. As both these applications were not decided by the District Court when appeal was transferred to it in the Second Appeal, this Court has to again remand the matter to the First Appellate Court for consideration those applications. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court has considered both these applications and allowed the application granting permission to respondents to file his written statement subject to the payment of heavy costs of Rs.10,000/- and also allowed another application permitting the respondent to file an affidavit evidence on record along with documents subject to the heavy costs of Rs.5000/-. Both these orders are complied with by the respondents. In such a situation, when already the written statement was on record and also the affidavit evidence and documents filed by the respondent were also on record, the First Appellate Court has no other option, but to remand the matter back to the Trial Court for retrial. 17. Now, the question for consideration is whether the Appellate Court should have, despite the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which more or less are mandatory in nature extended the time for filing of the written statement by respondent and that too in the appeal and beyond the time stipulated? However, in this respect, the law is fairly well crystalized by the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, some of the judgments are Zolba vs Keshao and ors. However, in this respect, the law is fairly well crystalized by the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, some of the judgments are Zolba vs Keshao and ors. AIR 2008 SC 2099 and R.N. Jodi and Brothers vs. Subhashchandra AIR 2007 SC 257, wherein it is held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, though cast an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within the period of thirty days, from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time of ninety days, the said provisions do not deal with the power of the Court and it also does not specifically take away the power of the Court to take written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for. Thus, the settled position of law is that the Court can extend the time stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing of W.S. in exceptional cases. 18. In the present case, it is not the Trial Court, which has extended the time, but it is the First Appellate Court, which has after taking into consideration all the facts on record has allowed the respondent to file the written statement, so that the matter can be decided on merit. Hence this submission that First Appellate Court could not have extended the time for filing of the written statement cannot be accepted. It is the duty of the Appellate Court to decide the matter on merit and for that purpose to pass all such orders, which are necessary, like the remand and retrial of the matter. 19. As regards the submission that, if this Court has, vide its judgment and order directed the First Appellate Court to decide the matter, it was not proper on the part of the First Appellate Court to remand the matter, needless to state that this Court has vide its order dated 28.04.2016 directed the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law and hence, it cannot be said that the First Appellate Court was directed to decide the suit itself. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court has decided the appeal and while deciding the appeal, as the First Appellate Court found that, in view of the permission granted to the defendant to file the written statement and also the affidavit evidence and documents, it was necessary to remand the matter for fresh trial, no fault can be found in the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court. 20. It is needless to state that, the cause of the litigant should not suffer on any count and he should be given all the opportunity when he has approached the Court to get his matter decided on merit. Here in the case, perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court reveals that it has considered that though Respondent-defendant has appeared in the suit through his counsel, if counsel has not filed written statement nor remained present at the time of hearing of the suit and as a result, when the suit came to be decreed ex parte under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and when the decree pertains to immovable property for its specific performance, the interest of justice always require that such matter should be decided on merit, after giving one more opportunity to the party to contest it. Here in the case accordingly, the First Appellate Court has, in order to compensate the appellant also imposed heavy costs of Rs.10,000/- while allowing the respondent application for permission to file written statement and further costs of Rs.5000/- for permitting the respondent to adduce his evidence affidavit and the documents. It was in these circumstances more than necessary for the First Appellate Court to remand the matter back to the Trial Court for hearing it on merit. 21. Thus looked at it from any angle, I do not find that impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court calls for any interference. There is also no question of any prejudice being caused to the appellant as he is also getting an opportunity to lead his evidence and reagitate the matter. The First Appellate Court has also made the disposal of the matter time bound and hence on this count there is no ground for prejudice also. The interest of justice required that both the parties agitate their respective contentions before the Trial Court and Trial Court decide the suit afresh. 22. The First Appellate Court has also made the disposal of the matter time bound and hence on this count there is no ground for prejudice also. The interest of justice required that both the parties agitate their respective contentions before the Trial Court and Trial Court decide the suit afresh. 22. The appeal therefore, holds no merit and hence stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.