ORDER : Aggrieved of order dated 5.12.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 50 of 2014, whereby application seeking recall of order by which the suit was set for ex parte hearing has been declined, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. Title Suit No. 50 of 2014 was instituted by Md. Harun for a declaration of his right, title and interest over Schedule-C land and for a declaration that deed/deeds, if any, obtained by defendant nos. 1 and 2 in respect of Schedule-C land is void illegal and is not binding on the plaintiff. Another prayer in the suit is for recovery of possession, if it is found that the plaintiff has been dispossessed from Schedule-C land during pendency of the suit. The defendants were served summons on 17.6.2014, however, they did not appear in the suit and finally by an order dated 27.8.2015 the suit was set for ex parte hearing. On 24.11.2015, the defendants appeared in the suit and filed an application on 26.11.2015 for recall of order dated 27.8.2015. This application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 5.12.2016. 3. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that dismissal of application dated 26.11.2015 is apparently erroneous, for the petitioners have pleaded plausible explanation for their non-appearance in the pending suit. 4. Order VIII Rule 1 CPC reads 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 written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record." 5. In "Rani Kusum (Smt.) vs. Kanchan Devi (Smt.)" reported in (2005)6 SCC 705 [: 2005(4) JLJR (SC)53] it has been held that bar under Rule 1 to Order VIII CPC is for the parties and not for the Court. No doubt mandate under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC must be followed, in appropriate cases the court can extend the time for filing written statement by the defendants. In their application dated 26.11.2015 the petitioners have pleaded that on account of an amicable settlement arrived between the parties on 22.6.2014, whereby the plaintiff had agreed to withdraw the suit, they did not appear in the pending suit, and taking advantage of this, the plaintiff prosecuted Title Suit No.50 of 2014 in absence of the defendants and got the suit set for ex parte hearing. No doubt, these facts have been denied by the respondents in their reply to the application dated 26.11.2015, however, the fact remains that the defendants have substantial interest in the suit property and after service of summons it does not appeal to reason why the defendants would not contest the suit. Parties to litigation must be afforded opportunity to contest the suit on merits. It is an admitted position that after the suit was set for ex parte hearing vide order dated 27.8.2015, trial in the suit has not progressed. In my opinion, correct approach of the trial court would have been to permit the defendants to contest the suit on imposition of cost upon them. 6. In the above facts, impugned order dated 5.12.2016 is rendered unsustainable and accordingly, it is set aside, however, in view of delay of more than one year, that is, after the defendants were served summons, cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed upon the petitioners, which shall be paid to the defendants. 7. The writ petition stands allowed.