JUDGMENT : 1. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) regarding land measuring 02 kanals and 10 marlas before the court of learned Munsiff, Budgam. Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as defendant) on appearance had filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint which application has been decided against the defendant vide order dated 25-05-2015 passed by the learned trial court. 2. When the suit thereafter came up for further proceedings on 17-09-2015, the defendant filed written statement which was objected to by the plaintiffs on the ground that the time prescribed for filing the written statement has already expired. Learned trial court agreeing with the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs refused to take the written statements on record as is clear from the order impugned. 3. It is this order dated 17-09-2015, which is assailed. Revision petition against such order in view of amended position of Section 115 of CPC is not maintainable. Petitioner being conscious of the same has filed the petition under Section 115 of the CPC read with Section 104 of the Constitution of the J&K State. 4. Confronted with the position of the maintainability of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition may be treated as petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of the J&K State. 5. The course to treat it is as petition under Section 104 is available but for that exceptional case is to be made out. Reverting back to the proceedings of the trial court and the position of the parties, it is clear that the defendant on appearance instead of filing written statement has filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was rejected on 25-05-2015. It is also admitted position that on 17-09-2015, the defendant submitted the written statement which was not taken on record. Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC provides time limit of 30 days for filing the written statement from the date of serving of summons, however in terms of the proviso appended thereto for reasons to be recorded in writing, time could be extended up to 90 days from the date of serving summons. 6. Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC provides time limit of 30 days for filing the written statement from the date of serving of summons, however in terms of the proviso appended thereto for reasons to be recorded in writing, time could be extended up to 90 days from the date of serving summons. 6. Plain reading of the above referred provision would suggest that after 90 days there is no scope for allowing the defaulting defendant to file the written statement. The wording used according to the learned counsel for the respondents is mandatory in its operation therefore there is no scope for any interference. But the position as to whether Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is mandatory or directory has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocates Bar Association Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353 . Relying on the said judgment, the High Court of Jharakhand in case Shibu Sahu and others Vs. Lachan Devi AIR 2011 Jha 145 has observed that if reasonable explanation is given by defendant for delay in filing written statement then written statement can be taken on record by imposing some costs upon defendant. In the interest of justice, in the peculiar facts as referred to therein the order of the trial court was set aside and the written statement subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- as costs was allowed to be taken on records. 7. This court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Rashpaul Singh & Others reported in 2015(2) JKJ [HC] 424 has ruled that the order 8 Rule 1 CPC spells out disability on defendant, does not impose embargo on Court’s power regarding extension of time, with a word of caution that too only in the exceptional circumstances. 8. The object for amending the Code of Civil Procedure as rightly highlighted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is to ensure curtail unnecessary protraction of suit proceedings so that the disposal of the suit is expedited. Amended position has to be enforced in its letter and spirit. 9. It is trite that the procedure as prescribed is not designed to operate in the manner so as to cause injustice to a party when for default reasonable explanation is available. There can’t be a straight jacket formula to be adopted. Amended position has to be enforced in its letter and spirit. 9. It is trite that the procedure as prescribed is not designed to operate in the manner so as to cause injustice to a party when for default reasonable explanation is available. There can’t be a straight jacket formula to be adopted. Every case has its own facts and circumstances and it is in the same background power to extend or not to extend time has to be exercised. 10. Coming to the present case, what has happened is that admittedly the defendant had appeared before the trial court on 09-07-2014 and immediately thereafter had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint which application has been decided on 25-05-2015. After rejection, within the time limit of 45 days the defendant had filed the written statement which was not taken on record. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had remained pending for sometime, in case same, would have been decided early may be then the defendant may have filed written statement, in such a situation exceptional case is made out which warrant that the defendant should be permitted to file the written statement which normally learned trial court should have allowed. 11. In the stated background treating this revision petition as petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of State, is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The defendant is permitted to file written statement within 15 days from today subject to payment of cost amounting to Rs. 5000/- payable to the plaintiffs. Copy of the order be sent to the trial court for information. Disposed of as above.