JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 04.07.2016 passed in Title Suit No.282 of 2015 by which his application seeking recall of order dated 23.01.2016 has been rejected. By order dated 23.01.2016 the petitioner has been debarred from filing written statement. 2. Title Suit No.282 of 2015 has been instituted for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs'' right, title and interest and for confirmation of their possession over the suit land. Alternatively, a prayer has been made to put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit land if they are found not in possession of the suit land. 3. By an order dated 30.06.2015 notice to the defendant was issued in the suit. Order-sheet of Title Suit No.282 of 2015 which has been produced by the petitioner vide Annexure-5 would disclose that he appeared in the suit on 03.09.2015 and the matter was adjourned for 08.10.2015 for filing written statement. On the next three dates, that is, on 08.10.2015, 23.11.2015 and 03.12.2015 the petitioner was granted time for filing written statement, however, when he did not file his written statement of defence within the extended time, by an order dated 23.01.2016 he has been debarred from filing written statement. 4. Contending that the learned trial judge, who has observed that justice delayed is justice denied, has completely overlooked that justice hurried is justice worried, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that within a span of four months after the petitioner has appeared in the suit he has been debarred from filing written statement. 5. Order VIII Rule 1 CPC provides that within 30 days of service of summons upon him the defendant shall file his written statement of defence. This period of 30 days, however, has now been extended to 90 days by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 by which proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC has been incorporated. By now it is well-settled that the period provided under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for filing written statement is binding on the parties, but not on the court [refer Rani Kusum (Smt.) Vrs. By now it is well-settled that the period provided under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for filing written statement is binding on the parties, but not on the court [refer Rani Kusum (Smt.) Vrs. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) reported in , (2005) 6 SCC 705 and for the reasons to be recorded by the court, on an application of the defendant, the trial court may permit the defendant to file written statement beyond the statutory period provided under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC [refer Kailash Vrs. Nanhku & others reported in , (2005) 4 SCC 480 ]. The subject matter of the suit is landed property and thus it is apparent that the petitioner has a valuable interest involved in the suit. Normally, parties should be provided opportunities to contest the suit on merits and a technical walk-over should be avoided. The learned trial judge appears to be swayed away by the object behind amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, however, in the process it has overlooked the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 6. In the impugned order dated 04.07.2016, the learned trial judge has observed that the entire order-sheet shows sheer negligence, disobedience and delaying tactics on the part of the defendants. At this stage it must be recorded that the order-sheet of Title Suit No. 282 of 2015 does not disclose any such observation of the court before the petitioner was debarred from filing written statement. Apparently the trial judge has committed serious error in law and therefore the impugned order dated 04.07.2016 warrants interference of this Court. 7. Viewed thus, and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.07.2016, it is set-aside. The written statement filed by the petitioner shall be taken on record. 8. The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.