JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. The instant Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant No. 4/petitioner assailing the order dated 13/05/2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 23/2009 Dhabariya Aglomerates Pvt. Ltd. v. Nand Fashions & Ors., whereby the right of filing the written statement of the petitioner was closed, and order dated 28/01/2014 passed by the same Court in the same matter, whereby the application filed by the defendant No. 4/petitioner under Section 151 of CPC for taking the written statement on record, was dismissed. 2. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction with prayer to restrain the defendant/respondents to raise any kind of construction over the property of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and also to demolish the construction made on the property. The petitioner was added later on at the request of plaintiff/respondent No.1 and thereafter, learned trial Court issued summons to the petitioner and in compliance of summon, the petitioner appeared before the learned trial Court. On 30/04/2013, the matter was fixed for filing of the written statement and it was adjourned at the request of the defendant No. 4/petitioner on cost of Rs.500/- and next date 13/05/2013 was fixed for written statement. On 13/05/2013, written statement was not filed, therefore, right to file written statement was closed and the case was fixed for framing of issues. On 26/07/2013, the defendant No. 4/petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC along with written statement with prayer of taking the same on record. Plaintiff/respondent did not file any reply to the application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 28/01/2014. 3. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 13/05/2013 and 28/01/2014, the defendant No. 4/petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Plaintiff/respondent did not file any reply to the application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 28/01/2014. 3. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 13/05/2013 and 28/01/2014, the defendant No. 4/petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 30/04/2013, the matter was fixed for filing the written statement but on that date, counsel for the petitioner in impression that next date given is 15/07/2013 for filing the written statement, recorded the same in his diary but when he appeared before the Court on 15/07/2013, then it came to his knowledge that inadvertently an incorrect date was recorded in the matter and the right to file written statement was closed on 13/05/2013, and also he came to know that the next date is 26/07/2013. It is also contended that on next date 26/07/2013, defendant No.4/petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC along with written statement with prayer of taking the same on record, which was already prepared on 15/07/2013 but could not be filed in the Court as the case was not fixed on that date and the next date was 26/07/2013. The plaintiff/respondent did not choose to file reply of the petitioner's application under Section 151 of CPC. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the application of defendant No.4/petitioner vide impugned order dated 28/01/2014, observing that last opportunity was granted to the defendant No. 4 on 30/04/2013 on cost of Rs.500/- and when he appeared on 15/07/2013 for filing written statement, then why the same was not filed. Learned trial Court also observed that even otherwise, the Court does not have any jurisdiction to review its own order, dismissed the petitioner's application ignoring the fact that due to inadvertent and oversight, an incorrect date was recorded by counsel for the petitioner. It is further contended that the fact of closing of right to file written statement on 13/05/2013, came to the knowledge of counsel for the petitioner on 15/07/2013, when he appeared before the Court but he did not file the same on 15/07/2013, as there was no date in the matter in the Court and the application along with written statement was filed on the next date 26/07/2013, which was already fixed. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code is directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided under Rule 1 Order 8 of Civil Procedure Code, is not completely taken away. It is also contended that the plaintiff/respondent can be compensated by way of cost, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the trial will be delayed, if the petition is allowed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on :- 2005 (4) SCC 480 Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 strongly opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order. Learned counsel also contended that the case before the learned trial Court was fixed on 30/04/2013 for filing of written statement and the case was adjourned at the request of the petitioner, and last opportunity to file written statement was given on cost of Rs.500/- fixing the next date to be 13/05/2013, but no written statement was filed on 13/05/2013, therefore, right to file written statement was closed and the case was fixed for settlement on issues. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. also contended that the learned trial Court fixed 14/12/2012, 27/02/2013, 05/04/2013, 30/04/2013 and 13/05/2013 for filing of written statement by defendant No. 4/petitioner but the same was not filed. It is also contended that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC is contrary to the record and prayed to dismiss the petition being devoid of substance. 8. We gave our anxious consideration to rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available to us. 9. Perusal of material made available on record and contentions of learned counsel for the parties, reveal that the petitioner was added as defendant by the learned trial Court on an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC and thereafter, petitioner entered her appearance in compliance of the summon issued by the Court. It also reveals that five dates i.e. 14/12/2012, 27/02/2013, 05/04/2013, 30/04/2013 and 13/05/2013 were fixed for filing of written statement of defendant No.4/petitioner. It also reveals that five dates i.e. 14/12/2012, 27/02/2013, 05/04/2013, 30/04/2013 and 13/05/2013 were fixed for filing of written statement of defendant No.4/petitioner. It also reveals that the petitioner has filed his written statement along with application dated 26/07/2013 filed under Section 151 of CPC, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28/01/2014, which is under challenge before us. 10. Provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC, as it stands now, read as under:- "1. Written statement.- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons." 11. In sub-para (iv) and (v) of Para 45 of it's judgment in Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :- (iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order 8, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. Though, the language of the proviso to Rule 1 Order 8 of the Civil Procedure Code is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non-compliance. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is not completely taken away. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is not completely taken away. (v) Though Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is a part of Procedural Law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded the Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. 12. To us, the reasons assigned by the defendant/petitioner in support of the prayer for extension of time, is good and valid. The written statement has already been filed in the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court denied the prayer of the petitioner on the premise that it does not have jurisdiction to review it's own order. 13. The view of the law so taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court, squarely applies to the issue before us. The plaintiff/respondent can be compensated by way of cost for the inconvenience and delay caused in disposal of the suit. 14. In view of above, the petition deserves acceptance on cost of Rs.10,000/-. It is pertinent to note that before issuing notice to the respondents, Coordinate Bench of this Court, passed the following order. The plaintiff/respondent can be compensated by way of cost for the inconvenience and delay caused in disposal of the suit. 14. In view of above, the petition deserves acceptance on cost of Rs.10,000/-. It is pertinent to note that before issuing notice to the respondents, Coordinate Bench of this Court, passed the following order. "Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 22/07/2015 on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.10,000/- as cost before this Court on or before 09/07/2015." 15. According to office report dated 08/07/2015, receipt of depositing Rs.10,000/- filed. Therefore, we direct that the written statement shall now be taken on record. Amount of Rs.10,000/- so deposited by the petitioner as cost, be paid to the plaintiff/respondent on filing appropriate application in this regard. The petition stands allowed in above terms.