JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 26.02.2016, vide which the court below has closed the written statement of defendants No.11 & 12. Petitioner being defendant No.12, has challenged the impugned order. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.12 that the court below proceeded ex parte against the petitioner on 09.10.2015. The application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed on cost of Rs. 500/- on 26.02.2016. But the court below without affording opportunity to the petitioner, closed the written statement. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that the court is empowered to permit filing of the written statement. 3. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480 , wherein the Apex Court observed that considering the object and purpose behind enacting Order 8, Rule 1 CPC in the present form and the context, in which the provision is placed, the Court was of the opinion that the provision has been construed as directory and not mandatory, and in exceptional situations, the court may extend the time for filing of the written statement within 30 days and 90 days referred to in the provision has expired. 4. I have considered the contentions of counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order and the judgment cited before the Court. 5. Order 8, Rule 1 CPC reads as under:- "The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence" Proviso to Order 8, Rule 1 CPC provides that if 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, and on expiry of a period of 120 days, the defendant shall forfeit his right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. 6. 6. In the present case in hand, the petitioner was served way back in May, 2014 as vakalatnama on her behalf was filed before the court on 23.05.2014. For a period of more than one year five months, no written statement was filed on her behalf and the court below ultimately proceeded ex parte against her. However, the ex parte proceedings have been set aside by the impugned order, but the delay being inordinate, the court below has rightly closed the written statement. It is noted that even on the date when the impugned order was passed, the written statement was not filed. Meaning thereby a period of one year nine months has lapsed, since service on the petitioner. 7. The judgment, on which the petitioner has placed reliance do not apply to the facts of the present case, because in this case there is delay of one year nine months. The delay being inordinate, cannot be condoned even on payment of cost. 8. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed.